A FRAMEWORK OF PROMOTING STAKEHOLDER MUTUAL … · stakeholder-specific action guidelines for sustainable housing implementation. The study concludes with a case study of two real-life

A FRAMEWORK OF PROMOTING

STAKEHOLDER MUTUAL BENEFITS FOR

SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

IMPLEMENTATION

By

Zhengyu Yang B.Eng Civil Engineering, B.Sc Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, M.Eng

Structural Engineering

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2012

Civil Engineering and Built Environment

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation i

Abstract

Strong regulatory pressure and rising public awareness on environmental issues

will continue to influence the market demand for sustainable housing for years to

come. Despite this potential, the voluntary uptake rate of sustainable practices is not

as high as expected within the new built housing industry. This is in contrast to the

influx of emerging building technologies, new materials and innovative designs as

showcased in office buildings and exemplar homes worldwide. One of the possible

reasons for this under-performance is that key stakeholders such as developers,

builders and consumers do not fully understand and appreciate the related challenges,

risks and opportunities of pursuing sustainability. Therefore, in their professional and

business activities, they may not be able to see the tangible and mutual benefits that

sustainable housing may bring.

This research investigates the multiple challenges to achieving benefits (CABs)

from sustainable housing development, and links these factors to the characteristics

of key stakeholders in the housing supply chain. It begins with a comparative survey

study among seven stakeholder groups in the Australian housing industry, in order to

examine the importance and interrelationships of CABs. In-depth interviews then

further explore the survey findings with a focus on stakeholder diversity, which leads

to the identification of 12 critical mutual-benefit factors and their interrelationship.

Based on such a platform, a mutual-benefit framework is developed with the aid of

Interpretive Structure Modelling, to identify the patterns of stakeholder benefit

materialisation, suggest the priority of critical factors and provide related

stakeholder-specific action guidelines for sustainable housing implementation.

The study concludes with a case study of two real-life housing projects to test

the application of the mutual-benefit framework for improvement. This framework

will lead to a shared value of sustainability among stakeholders and improved

stakeholder collaboration, which in turn help to break the “circle of blame” for the

current under-performance of sustainable housing implementation.

Key Words: Sustainable housing, stakeholder, mutual benefits, collaborative

decision-making, critical factors, framework.

ii A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: _________________________

Date: ______2012.6.21___________

QUT Verified Signature

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deep gratitude to those whose inspiration and

involvement made this thesis possible. My greatest appreciation goes to my principal

supervisor, Professor Jay Yang, for his persistent encouragement and guidance that

enlightened me about how to accomplish rigorous research, and pushed me out of

occasional standstills along my PhD journey. Similarly, I would like to express a big

“thank you” to my associate supervisor, Professor Chris Eves, whose invaluable

knowledge and experience enriched my understanding of doctoral research.

Additionally, I want to state my thanks in no small part to Helen Whittle,

Karyn Gonano and Allison Thompson for aiding me in the process of writing in my

second language, and to my fellow PhD students Asrul Masrom, Mei Yuan, Anna

Wiewiora, An Liu, Mei Li, Judy Luo for their friendship and intellectual stimulus. I

thank the industry practitioners who had a major influence on this research by

sharing their views on sustainable housing development, including Neil Thompson,

Sandy McCathie, Nicky Crane, David Warner, to name but a few. My thanks are also

due to other academic staff and QUT Research Portfolio staff who were always

available to provide essential assistance.

Moreover, I would like to convey my special thanks to my friends, Roger

Chen, Kai Chen Goh, JoJo Hung, Karan H Bhalla, Eric Li, Lisa Li, Emily Liu, Yulin

Liu, Frank Wang, Michael Wang, and Donald Zhang, with whom I have been so

lucky to share interests and wisdom in life for the past few years in Australia. They

provided a great deal of support through the completion of this PhD project and it

was a pleasure to go through “thick and thin” together with them.

Lastly, but importantly, I am grateful for the emotional support of my parents

and my girlfriend Hongyang Zhao. Your unconditional love makes me feel peaceful

and fulfilled no matter what challenges I face.

iv A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i

Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix

List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. xi

List of Publications .............................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Research Background .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 The Need to Promote Mutual Benefits in the Implementation of Sustainable Housing .............. 3 1.2.1 Complexity of Sustainable Value .................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Diversity of the Construction Supply Chain .................................................................. 4

1.3 Research Question, Aim and Objectives ...................................................................................... 6

1.4 Research Scope ............................................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Research Process .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Overview of the Dissertation ....................................................................................................... 9

1.7 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 11

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 The Concept of Housing Sustainability ..................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Defining Sustainability ................................................................................................ 11 2.2.2 Defining Sustainable Housing ..................................................................................... 13

2.3 Sustainable Development in Australia’s Housing Sector ........................................................... 17 2.3.1 Housing Sector Characteristics .................................................................................... 17 2.3.2 Trends in Policies and Technologies ........................................................................... 19 2.3.3 Industry and Market Adaptation .................................................................................. 23

2.4 Overview of Existing Research RelATED to stakehodler mutual beneits in Sustainable Housing development ............................................................................................................................ 24 2.4.1 Economic Research ...................................................................................................... 25 2.4.2 Barriers and Drivers of Sustainable Housing Development, and Corresponding Policymaking ……………………………………………………………………………………….29 2.4.3 Collaborative Theories ................................................................................................. 34

2.5 Recap of Research Gaps ............................................................................................................ 38 2.5.1 Gap in Common Understanding of the Challenges to Achieving Sustainability Benefits and their Mutual Influences .................................................................................................... 39 2.5.2 Gap in Employing Comparative Study to Examine Multiple Stakeholders’ Perceptions on Benefits and Roles ............................................................................................................................ 39 2.5.3 Gap in Consolidating Existing Policies and Potential Collaborative Actions with a Systematic Framework .......................................................................................................................... 40

2.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................... 43

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation v

3.2 Research Proposition ................................................................................................................. 43

3.3 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 43 3.3.1 Research Philosophy .................................................................................................... 45 3.3.2 Research Approach ...................................................................................................... 46 3.3.3 The Purpose of the Research ....................................................................................... 47 3.3.4 Type of Investigation ................................................................................................... 48 3.3.5 Researcher Interference and Study Settings................................................................. 48 3.3.6 Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................................... 48 3.3.7 Time Horizon ............................................................................................................... 49

3.4 Research Methods ...................................................................................................................... 49 3.4.1 Review of Existing Research Methods ........................................................................ 49 3.4.2 Selection of Research Methods .................................................................................... 51 3.4.3 Research Process ......................................................................................................... 54 3.4.4 Considerations of the Research Instruments, Data Analysis Procedures and Results . 57

3.5 The Conceptual Framework (Analytical Protocol) .................................................................... 59 3.5.1 Identifying General CABs ........................................................................................... 59 3.5.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders in Sustainable Housing Development .......................... 62

3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 4: SURVEY STUDY ...................................................................................................... 71

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 71

4.2 Survey Instruments and Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................... 71 4.2.1 Survey Purpose ............................................................................................................ 71 4.2.2 Selection of Survey Types ........................................................................................... 72 4.2.3 Questionnaire Design ................................................................................................... 73 4.2.4 Sampling Design and Respondent Profile ................................................................... 74 4.2.5 Data Analysis Techniques and Tools ........................................................................... 77 4.2.6 Reliability and Validity of the Survey Measures ......................................................... 81

4.3 Questionnaire Results ................................................................................................................ 82 4.3.1 General Views on Sustainable Housing Development ................................................ 82 4.3.2 CAB Rankings ............................................................................................................. 85 4.3.3 CAB Correlation .......................................................................................................... 91 4.3.4 Stakeholder Network, Influence Level and Willingness .............................................. 97 4.3.5 Stakeholder Value Gap Based on Similarities and Differences of CAB Rankings ... 104

4.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 115

CHAPTER 5: INTERVIEW STUDY ............................................................................................. 117

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 117

5.2 Interview Instruments and Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................. 117 5.2.1 Interview Purpose ...................................................................................................... 117 5.2.2 Approach of the Interview ......................................................................................... 118 5.2.3 Interview Question Design and Interview Administration ........................................ 119 5.2.4 Interviewee Profile ..................................................................................................... 121 5.2.5 Qualitative Content Analysis ..................................................................................... 125

5.3 Interview Results ..................................................................................................................... 128 5.3.1 Roles and Work Processes of Key Stakeholders …………………………………..130 5.3.2 Benefits and Risks of Key Stakeholders .................................................................... 135 5.3.3 Current Status, Problems and Strategies of CABs ..................................................... 142

5.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 171

CHAPTER 6: A FRAMEWORK FOR MUTUAL BENEFITS OF MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................................................................ 177

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 177

6.2 Interpretive Structural Modelling Technique and Data Analysis Procedures .......................... 177 6.2.1 Interpretive Structural Modelling Purpose ................................................................. 177

vi A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

6.2.2 Interpretive Structural Modelling Procedures ............................................................ 178

6.3 Interpretive Structural Modelling Analysis .............................................................................. 179 6.3.1 Identification of Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits ............................... 179 6.3.2 Identification of Contextual Relationship among CFAMBs and Development of the Self-Interaction Matrix ........................................................................................................................ 184 6.3.3 Reachability Matrix ................................................................................................... 186 6.3.4 Level Partitions .......................................................................................................... 188 6.3.5 Visualising the ISM-Based Model ............................................................................. 191 6.3.6 Conceptualisation of the Mutual-benefit Framework ................................................ 192

6.4 The Mutual Benefit Framework for Multiple Stakeholders ..................................................... 194 6.4.1 Innovative Collaboration – the Prerequisite ............................................................... 196 6.4.2 Regulatory Enforcement – the Driving Force ............................................................ 201 6.4.3 Research &Development and Knowledge Diffusion – the Core Creative Force ....... 206 6.4.4 Market Adaptation – the Ultimate Indicator .............................................................. 209

6.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 211

CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDIES AND FRAMEWORK FINALISATION .................................. 213

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 213

7.2 Case Study Design ................................................................................................................... 213 7.2.1 Case Study Purpose ................................................................................................... 214 7.2.2 Unit of Analysis ......................................................................................................... 214 7.2.3 Design Types of Case Study ...................................................................................... 215 7.2.4 Selection of Cases ...................................................................................................... 216 7.2.5 Procedures of Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................. 218

7.3 Case Study Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 220 7.3.1 Application of Framework to the FC Project ............................................................. 221 7.3.2 Framework Application on CW Case Project ............................................................ 233

7.4 Overall Findings of Case Studies and the Model Finalisation ................................................. 243 7.4.1 Overall Practicality of the Framework ....................................................................... 243 7.4.2 Innovative Collaboration ........................................................................................... 244 7.4.3 Regulatory and Policy Support .................................................................................. 244 7.4.4 Scientific Rating Tools and Reliable Cost-Benefit Data ............................................ 245 7.4.5 Integration of Technology and Design ....................................................................... 245 7.4.6 Market Scale .............................................................................................................. 246

7.5 Framework Finalisation ........................................................................................................... 246

7.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 250

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 251

8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 251

8.2 Review of Research Objectives and Development Process ..................................................... 251

8.3 Conclusions of the Research .................................................................................................... 253 8.3.1 The Significances of Challenges to Achieving Benefits from Sustainable Housing .253 8.3.2 Diversity of Key Stakeholders in Roles, Benefits and Risks ..................................... 254 8.3.3 Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits and the Mutual-benefit Framework.. 255

8.4 Research Contributions ............................................................................................................ 259

8.5 Research Limitations ............................................................................................................... 262

8.6 Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................................................. 262

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 265

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 279 Appendix A1 Invitation Letter – Questionnaire .................................................................................. 279 Appendix A2 A Sample of the Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 282 Appendix B1 Invitation Letter – Interview ......................................................................................... 287 Appendix B2 A Sample of the Interview Question Sheet (for Government Agency officials) ........... 289

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation vii

Appendix B3 A Sample of Coded Categories of the Interview Study (Developer) ............................ 293 Appendix C Consent Form ................................................................................................................. 295

viii A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Circle of blame for under-delivery of sustainable housing ................................................... 5

Figure 2.1. Environmental impact of the building industry (Newton et al., 2001; Roodman et al., 1995) ............................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3.1. Research proposition .......................................................................................................... 44

Figure 3.2. The research process .......................................................................................................... 56

Figure 4.1. Sampling distribution of respondents by experience .......................................................... 77

Figure 4.2. The stakeholder networks and influence in sustainable housing development ................. 101

Figure 5.1. Pressure-State-Response model ........................................................................................ 142

Figure 6.1. ISM procedures ................................................................................................................ 179

Figure 6.2. ISM model of CFAMBs ................................................................................................... 191

Figure 6.3. Categorisation of CFAMBs .............................................................................................. 192

Figure 6.4. Mutual-benefit framework ................................................................................................ 195

Figure 6.5. A preliminary collaboration model based on stakeholder interaction .............................. 197

Figure 6.6. Conceptual stakeholder mutual benefits among key stakeholders.................................... 199

Figure 6.7. Self-enforced loop 1 ......................................................................................................... 208

Figure 6.8. Self-enforced loop 2 ......................................................................................................... 210

Figure 7.1. Master plan of the FC project ........................................................................................... 221

Figure 7.2. FC community .................................................................................................................. 223

Figure 7.3. The recommended pyramid structure for stakeholder collaboration ................................ 225

Figure 7.4. Master plan of CW development ...................................................................................... 233

Figure 7.5. CW community ................................................................................................................ 234

Figure 7.6. Design of garden roof ....................................................................................................... 240

Figure 7.7. The finalised mutual-benefit framework .......................................................................... 248

Figure 7.8. The finalised collaboration model .................................................................................... 249

Figure 8.1. Stakeholder collaboration model ...................................................................................... 254

Figure 8.2. Hierarchy of the 12 CFAMBs .......................................................................................... 256

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Multi-dimensional Framework of Sustainability ................................................................... 13

Table 2.2 Sustainability Concepts in the Housing Industry .................................................................. 16

Table 2.3 Elements of Environmental Sustainability - the GBCA Green Star System .......................... 21

Table 2.4 Summary of Commonly Used Technologies .......................................................................... 22

Table 2.5 Development of Targeted Keywords in Literature Retrieval................................................. 24

Table 2.6 TBL Benefits from Engaging Sustainable Housing ............................................................... 28

Table 2.7 Push and Pull Factors in Innovation Investment .................................................................. 30

Table 2.8 Common Examples of Fiscal Incentives (Warnock, 2007) .................................................... 32

Table 3.1 Comparison of Research Philosophies in Management Research (Saunders et al., 2009) .................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 3.2 Prospective Research Strategies for this Research ............................................................... 52

Table 3.3 Types of Results ..................................................................................................................... 58

Table 3.4 A Comparison of Theoretical bases of Developing the Analytical protocol ......................... 61

Table 3.5 The CAB List ......................................................................................................................... 63

Table 3.6 Literature Related to the Analytical Protocol ....................................................................... 65

Table 3.7 Key Stakeholders in Sustainable Housing Development ....................................................... 68

Table 4.1 Sampling Distribution of Respondents by Professional Background .................................... 76

Table 4.2 Methods of Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................. 78

Table 4.3 General Views on Sustainable Housing Implementation ...................................................... 83

Table 4.4 Ranking of the Economic Challenges .................................................................................... 86

Table 4.5 Ranking of the Institutional Challenges ................................................................................ 87

Table 4.6 Ranking of the Technical and Design Challenges ................................................................. 88

Table 4.7 Ranking of the Socio-cultural Challenges ............................................................................. 89

Table 4.8 Main Findings of CAB Rankings ........................................................................................... 90

Table 4.9 Correlations of CABs ............................................................................................................ 93

Table 4.10 Kendall’s tau Correlations (t) Between the CABs and Respondents’ Characteristics ........ 95

Table 4.11 Distribution of Stakeholder Networks in Sustainable Housing ........................................... 98

Table 4.12 Stakeholder Influence Level of Decision-making ................................................................ 99

Table 4.13 Willingness to Engage in Sustainable Housing ................................................................. 101

Table 4.14 Main Findings of Stakeholder Characteristics ................................................................. 103

Table 4.15 Ranking of the CABs according to Respondent’s Professional Background .................... 105

Table 4.16 Comparison of CABs among Stakeholders ....................................................................... 107

Table 4.17 Main Findings of Stakeholders’ Value Gaps .................................................................... 113

Table 5.1 Comparison of Interview Types (based on Saunders et al. 2009) ....................................... 118

Table 5.2 Interview Questions ............................................................................................................. 120

Table 5.3 Interviewee Profiles ............................................................................................................ 122

Table 5.4 Statistical Breakdown of Interviewees ................................................................................ 124

x A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

Table 5.5 NVivo Coding Summary ...................................................................................................... 127

Table 5.6 Criteria and Validity of Qualitative Content Analysis of this Research .............................. 128

Table 5.7 Approaches to Presenting the Interview Results ................................................................. 129

Table 5.8 Extracted Benefits and Risks of Key Stakeholders from Engaging in Sustainable Housing Practices .............................................................................................................. 136

Table 5.9 Key Barriers to Pursuing Mutual Benefits .......................................................................... 171

Table 5.10 Hierarchical Significance of CABs ................................................................................... 172

Table 6.1 Removed CABs from the Original CAB List ........................................................................ 180

Table 6.2 Spearman’s rho correlations (R) of significant CABs ......................................................... 182

Table 6.3 Twelve Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits (CFAMBs) ..................................... 183

Table 6.4 Symbols to Represent the Contextual Relationship in the ISM ............................................ 184

Table 6.5 Initial Structural Self-Interaction Matrix of CFAMBs ........................................................ 186

Table 6.6 Initial Reachability Matrix .................................................................................................. 186

Table 6.7 Final Reachability Matrix ................................................................................................... 187

Table 6.8 Iteration 1 of Level Partition ............................................................................................... 189

Table 6.9 Iteration 8 (Last Iteration) of Level Partition ..................................................................... 190

Table 6.10 Levels of CFAMBs ............................................................................................................. 190

Table 7.1 Comparison of Case Study Design Types ............................................................................ 215

Table 7.2 Interviewee profiles in the case studies ............................................................................... 220

Table 7.3 Implemented Sustainable Practices in FC Development..................................................... 227

Table 7.4 Data Comparison between CW Dwellings and Average South Australian Homes ............. 238

Table 7.5 Implemented Sustainable Practices in the CW Development .............................................. 239

Table 7.6 Recommended Changes to the Mutual-benefit Framework................................................. 247

A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation xi

List of Abbreviations

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

AGDF Australian Green Development Forum

AHURI Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

AIA Australian Institute of Architects

BCA Building Code of Australia

CAB Challenges to achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing

development

CFAMB Critical factors of achieving mutual benefits of engaging in sustainable

housing

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

GBCA Green Building Council of Australia

HIA Housing Industry Association

ISM Interpretive Structural Modelling

ISSM Initial Structural Self-Interaction Matrix

LCA Life-cycle analysis

MBA Master Builders Australia

NatHERS Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PCA Property Council of Australia

PSR Pressure-State-Response

PV Photovoltaic

QDC Queensland Development Code

QUT Queensland University of Technology

SCM Supply chain management

SD Standard deviation

SNA Social network analysis

SSCM Sustainable supply chain management

TOD Transit-oriented Development

TBL Triple Bottom Line

xii A Framework of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing Implementation

List of Publications

Yang Z & Yang J, 2009. Sustainable Housing Implementation through Mutual Benefits to Stakeholders-A decision making approach. In: Proceeding of 14th International Symposium on “Advancement of Construction Management and Teal Estate (CRIOCM 2009), 29th-31st October 2009, Nanjing, China, pp. 1012-1018. Yang Z & Yang J, 2012. Critical Factors of Promoting Market Demand of Sustainable Housing in Australia. Paper accepted for the Proceeding of International Conference on Engineering and Business Management (EBM2012), 23rd -25th March 2012, Shanghai, China. Yang Z, Yang J & Eves C, 2012. The Implementation of Sustainable Housing through Mutual Benefits to Key Stakeholders. Paper accepted for the Proceeding of the 4th CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments (SASBE2012), 28th -30th June 2012, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Yang Z & Yang J, 2012. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Sustainable Housing in Australia. Submitted to Construction management and Economics. Yang Z & Yang J, 2012. A Collaboration Model of Promoting Stakeholder Mutual Benefits for Sustainable Housing. Prepared for publication in Journal of Real Estate Research. Yang Z & Yang J, 2012 A Mutual-benefit Framework for Key Stakeholders towards Successful Implementation of Sustainable Housing. Prepared for publication in Journal of Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Environmental sustainability has been high on the agenda of the Australian

housing industry in recent years. If it is to have a 67% chance of keeping global

warming below 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, research has indicated

that it would be necessary for Australia to de-carbonise its economy by 2020

(Melbourne Energy Institute, 2010). The housing sector alone accounts for

approximately 25% of carbon emissions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009),

demanding the market uptake of sustainable housing to protect ecological processes

and safeguard the welfare of future generations.

A large number of sustainable technologies have been applied to the Australian

housing industry in the course of the technocratic evolution since the late 1900’s.

Technologies considered “low-hanging fruit” (easily achievable), such as structural

insulation, glazing, passive heating and cooling design and water conservation have

been driven into maturity. Cutting-edge measures such as the use of wind turbines,

solar panels and biomass have also proved ecologically appealing despite their high

cost (Yang & Alder, 2005). Well-designed sustainable housing with such innovative

features may potentially provide not only high ecological performance in terms of

energy efficiency and renewable materials, but also affordability and social

advantages. For example, a sustainable housing project will often receive green

grants and tax cuts, and streamlined land-use permits and approvals. Such low

energy consumption and operational expenditure also lead to direct cost savings for

consumers over the building’s lifetime. Additionally, homebuyers have enjoyed

increased property values in countries like the US and UK where sustainable features

are important determinants of market value (Lorenz et al., 2007). The social

advantages of sustainable buildings include better consumer comfort, functionality,

durability, maintenance, reputation and most importantly, public health (Horton,

2005; Pilkington et al., 2011; Yates, 2001). For example, the Berkeley national

laboratory showed that improved ventilation systems alone could reduce respiratory

illness by 9 to 20 precent, yielding savings of US$ 6 to 14 billion per year (Fisk,

2000).

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

Despite its technical viability and potential multi-dimensional benefits,

sustainable housing is struggling to find its niche in the mainstream Australian

market. Indeed, strong top-down forces have strived to drive housing sustainability

towards a standard practice since 2003, when a minimum energy-efficiency rating,

through local assessment tools, was made compulsory on newly developed

residential buildings (Australian Government, 2010). The highly debated carbon tax,

once fully implemented, will also provide a new carbon focus on sustainability.

Although energy efficiency and carbon emissions measures aim to bring clarity and

concentrate action on managing the broad and varied measures of sustainability, they

are fundamentally incomplete as resources that key stakeholders such as developers,

builders and consumers can use to understand the tangible benefits of sustainability

for their private business. With this key yardstick in business missing, a sustainable

housing project that cannot maintain benefits for stakeholders is hardly “sustainable”

(Building Design + Construction, 2011).

As a result, the voluntary uptake of sustainable housing on both the supply and

demand side is still in its infancy in Australia and only driven by industry pioneers.

The peak representative body for urban development, the Urban Development

Institute of Australia (UDIA), established a scientifically-based branding system

called “EnviroDevelopment” in 2001 to facilitate consumers’ choice of

environmentally sustainable development. However, to date, only 33 projects across

Australia have been certified as designed to protect the environment and use

resources responsibly while offering a range of benefits to homeowners (Urban

Development Institute of Australia, 2011). Similarly, in the Green Star rating scheme

of the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) only a modest 17 projects have

been assessed as 4 stars or above in the category of multi-unit residential buildings

(Green Building Council of Australia, 2011). While a third of Australians are

prepared to pay 10% and more for green products or services given their awareness

of rising energy bills and potential environmental impact, not many do so because

they don’t know where to start (Allan, 2009; Michaelis et al, 2010).

Gane and Hefferan (2007) compared the current housing sustainability

situation to the introduction of Information and Communication Technology and the

internet industry in the mid-1990s. They argue that sustainable housing has been

experiencing a period in which many view it as a threat and inconvenience to be


avoided. Stakeholders have been concerned about the reliability of technologies, the

affordability of sustainable practices, and the predictability of building performance.

These uncertainties highlight that the stakeholder community seems to know enough

about residential sustainability, but few are willing to take a firm and “sustainable”

approach towards it.

Unless the business and wider community can recognise increased benefits or

low risks, sustainable housing and the related innovative technologies will hardly

lead people out of their comfort zone and move to the mainstream. A solution to

promote individual benefits for stakeholders by establishing a mutual-benefit

framework for multiple stakeholders must be established.

1.2 THE NEED TO PROMOTE MUTUAL BENEFITS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

Working for mutual benefit is not a new concept in the industrial world. The

mutual-benefit approach ideally moves businesses beyond the win-lose situation

towards a truly successful relationship between stakeholders. Academic attempts

were also made to investigate this concept to promote “business cases” where

achieving communal goals involves various stakeholders working together. For

example, in the education field, Zey (1984) proposed a mutual-benefit framework to

facilitate three stakeholder groups to deal with their relations with each other.

Through a literature review, Zey investigated the mutual advantages of mentoring

between protégés, mentors and organisations. Zey identifies the disadvantages and

solutions for how to minimise them. Focusing on shared views, Zhexembayeva

(2008) investigated the factors and forces that allow for successful integration of

business impact and world benefit in the context of the former Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics. He concluded with a framework that incorporated nine success

factors and life-giving forces.

However, the literal definition of “mutual” is two-fold; according to the Oxford

Dictionary it means “experienced or done by each of two or more toward the

other(s)” and “held in common by two or more” or “shared”. To this end, although

both of the above studies generated practical contributions to industry and society,

they only covered a single connotation of “mutual”. In fact, the contemporary

collaborative theories echo the two-fold connotations of mutual benefits (Healey,

2003; Innes, 2004; Margerum, 2008). Two questions seem to be at the heart of


collaborative theories: In what ways can multiple interested parties reach

“consensus” on the multi-dimensional knowledge itself?; and What kinds of

“communicative or collaborative” actions – based on balanced stakeholder needs –

can convey the “consensual” knowledge?

To seamlessly incorporate the two-fold mutual-benefit principles into

sustainable housing development is never a straightforward process. Compared to

many other sectors, sustainable housing development encompasses two extremely

complex systems: sustainability with its multiple bottom lines; and a construction

supply chain with dozens of stakeholders. Both complex systems are a network of

many sub-systems, with each part functioning more or less independently, yet

interdependently in a non-linear manner.

1.2.1 Complexity of Sustainable Value

Sustainable activities in terms of value and wealth creation have been debated

at length. Sustainability is a complex system with economic, environmental, and

social dimensions. Unlike the direct economic activities, the environmental and

social dimensions of sustainable investments create many intangible, non-immediate

benefits to stakeholders (Panawek, 2007). These “softer” benefits could relate to risk,

brand recognition and community health, and are currently hard to quantify (Yates,

2001). Aligning the short-term factors with a long-term view requires a systematic

solution of policies, education and incentives applied to different stakeholders as a

whole. No single stakeholder in the housing industry can thoroughly appreciate the

unsystematic benefits without mutual understanding and compatible visions of

sustainable value with their supply chain partners (Shin et al., 2008).

1.2.2 Diversity of the Construction Supply Chain

The complexity of sustainability is compounded by the diversity and

multiplicity of stakeholders in the housing construction industry. The construction

supply chain involves dozens of industry practitioners supplying material and a wide

range of design, construction, consulting and marketing services (Dainty et al.,

2001). Additionally, government agencies and consumers heavily affect industry

practitioners’ decision-making towards sustainable housing. Every individual

stakeholder differs in the way they value and perceive social, economic and

environmental sustainability. Each link in the supply chain provides different


services and processes and employs skilled professionals appropriate to different

operations. With each “sub-system” functioning independently yet interdependently,

creating consensual solutions can be extremely difficult because single-issue interest

groups compete to establish the priority of their own particular issues (Theaker &

Cole, 2001). The current theory on environmental decision-making also revealed that

this misalignment in interests of multiple stakeholders originated from sectoral

planning rather than cross-sectoral planning became a major challenge in meeting

sustainability goals (Thabrew et al., 2009; Turcotte, 2007; United Nations

Environment Programme, 2003).

Confronted with the above uncertainty and complexity, stakeholders hesitate

when it comes to the decision-making related to housing sustainability. Moreover,

the misalignment of stakeholders’ needs has become a “circle of blame” where key

stakeholders shift responsibility for under-delivery of sustainable building (Figure

2.2). Such vicious circle was first conceptualised by Cadman describe sustainable

building development and raised concerns of researchers including Keeping (2000),

Lorenz et al. (2007), Myers et al. (2007) and Lützkendorf & Habil (2011). This

situation indicates that changes to sustainable housing practices require establishing

and maintaining a cross-sectoral, mutual-benefit paradigm in order to improve

stakeholder coordination beyond narrow self-interest.

Figure 1.1. Circle of blame for under-delivery of sustainable housing


1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION, AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Examining the inherent nature of stakeholder mutual benefits in implementing

sustainable housing offers a vision to adopt systematic thinking. This research

therefore asks:

Is it possible to develop a mutual-benefit framework to promote voluntary

adoption of sustainable housing by facilitating the understanding of

sustainable values, guiding possible stakeholder collaboration and assisting

the systemisation of the existing policies and instruments?

Drawing on the contemporary collaborative theories and the two-fold mutual-

benefit principles as discussed in Section 1.2, this research aims to:

Investigate the commonly agreed factors of sustainable housing development

and potential collaborative strategies to promote stakeholder mutual

benefits.

The following three objectives are designed to achieve the above aim:

1. Examine multiple challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable

housing development (in this thesis, the term “challenges to achieving

benefits from sustainable housing development” is abbreviated as CAB to

refer to this concept) for key stakeholders in terms of the significance,

current status and correlation.

2. Identify the diversity of key stakeholders in understanding their different

roles, benefits and risk in sustainable housing development, and value gaps

on CABs.

3. Identify critical factors of achieving mutual benefits of engaging in

sustainable housing (in this thesis, the term “critical factors of achieving

mutual benefits of engaging in sustainable housing” is abbreviated as

CFAMB to refer to this concept) based on shared visions of CABs and

balanced stakeholder needs, and accordingly develop a systematic mutual-

benefit framework to guide stakeholder actions:

Link the hierarchical significance of CFAMBs with the diversity of

key stakeholders, and in turn build individual and collaborative action

guidelines for stakeholders to address challenges of each CFAMB

Test and improve the mutual-benefit framework with case studies.


1.4 RESEARCH SCOPE

This research focuses on the new-build housing sector in Australia, but draws

on successful experiences of sustainable housing development from countries in

Europe and North America. Sustainable housing in this research follows the

Australian Housing Industry Association (HIA) definition of “residential buildings

that are designed and constructed using practical, affordable and durable

environmental solutions” (1999). It is not limited to only the dwelling itself, but

includes the immediate neighbourhood that deliberately strives for sustainability in a

manner beyond conventional housing.

Promoting mutual benefits for key stakeholders provides this research with an

economic and institutional perspective on sustainability, rather than addressing

technological issues. As outlined in the research objectives, contemporary

collaborative theories shed light on the two-fold perspectives to be investigated. The

research first puts emphasis on exploring the commonly-agreed critical factors for

achieving benefits from the implementation of sustainable housing. This vision links

contemporary economic theories of sustainable value with existing international

work on the barriers and drivers of sustainable housing development. The research

also focuses on identifying the tension, conflicts and potential collaborations between

“competitive” stakeholders with various interests, roles and incompatible objectives.

The findings within the above two-fold scope are mainly based on the

recognition of leading practitioners and government officials regarding their roles,

benefits, and the multi-dimensional challenges of achieving benefits from engaging

in sustainable housing development. As such, the selection of respondents is critical

for the research. Seven groups of stakeholders representing the mainstay of the

Australian housing industry were chosen: government body officials, financial

institution personnel, developers, builders, architects/designers, real estate agents/

consumers, and sustainability consultants.

1.5 RESEARCH PROCESS

The three research objectives are achieved through the three-stage research

process as shown in Figure 1.1.


Figure 1.2. Research process

Phase 1: Establishing a Conceptual Framework through Literature Study

The available literature on sustainable housing development in Australia and

stakeholder mutual benefits is reviewed. The aim of the literature review is to

identify research gaps and formulate a conceptual framework to guide this research.

Phase 2: Framework Development

The conceptual framework developed in Phase 1 leads to the collection of

quantitative and qualitative data through 50 questionnaire surveys and 20 semi-

structured interviews across four major Australian states. A preliminary mutual-

benefit framework for key stakeholders to facilitate sustainable housing

implementation is developed (refer to Chapters 4, 5 and 6). This preliminary

Research Activities

Chapters 2, 3

Chapters 4, 5, 6

Chapter 7

Phase 1 Literature Study

(1)Investigate background of sustainable housing development in Australia (2)Examine existing research associated with stakeholders’ mutual benefits

Phase 2 Framework Development

Questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Australia housing industry

Phase 3 Framework Finalisation

Real-life cases studies on two housing developments in Australia

Research Gaps Conceptual Framework Analytical Protocol

Objective 3b: Finalise the framework

Objective 1: Examine CAB significance, status and correlation Objective 2: Identify the diversity of key stakeholders Objective 3a: Identify CFAMBs and develop a preliminary mutual-benefit framework

Main Outcomes


framework addresses the two-fold connotation of stakeholder mutual benefits: 1)

establishing the “consensus” on the multi-dimensional factors of stakeholder mutual

benefits (Objective 1 and Objective 3); and 2) developing the “collaborative and

communicative” actions based on balanced stakeholder needs to convey the

consensus knowledge (Objective 2 and Objective 3).

Phase 3: Framework Finalisation

The findings extracted in Phase 2 are applied and tested through case studies of

two housing developments (refer to Chapter 7).

1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION

Chapter 2 first reviews sustainable housing development in Australia in terms

of its regulatory settings, technological advancement and social adoption. It then

examines the technological, economic, social and institutional aspects of

contemporary research regarding mutual benefits. The literature review identifies the

research gaps and argues the need for innovative collaboration to establish a mutual-

benefit framework.

Chapter 3 collates the methods used in previous research and develops the

rationale for developing an appropriate methodology for establishing a mutual-

benefit framework. A perception-based investigation of mutual benefits leads to the

development of an analytical protocol that includes nineteen important CABs and

seven key stakeholders. The protocol serves as a roadmap of data collection and

analysis.

Chapter 4 first describes the survey instruments and its sampling and

administration, and second explores the results showing the benefit-associated

factors of sustainable housing in detail. Chapter 5 extends the survey findings and

investigates benefit distribution across supply chain partners through semi-structured

interviews. The common and differing perceptions of roles, benefits and

collaboration patterns among key stakeholders are analysed and the critical CABs are

identified.

Chapter 6 synthesises the survey and interview results into a preliminary

mutual-benefit framework and contrasts it with the existing literature. The

framework clarifies the relationship between critical mutual benefit factors and

incorporates a stakeholder-specific action guide. In Chapter 7, two case studies that


test and improve the framework lead to a final and complete framework that

promotes stakeholder mutual benefits. Chapter 8 draws the conclusions from the

research, indicating its significance and future work.

1.7 SUMMARY

This chapter outlined the need to promote mutual benefits in the

implementation of sustainable housing given the complex nature of sustainable value

and housing supply chain stakeholders. It then presented an overview of the thesis

and explained how the chapters interlink. The research aim will steer the critical

examination of current theories and practices associated with the promotion of

stakeholder mutual benefits from engaging in sustainable housing development.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the development of sustainable housing in Australia and

reviews existing theories and practices related to the implementation of housing

sustainability. This leads to the most recent thinking in promoting mutual benefits for

key stakeholders.

The review of the relevant literature starts by elaborating the definitions of

sustainable housing and introducing its current implementation in Australia. The

review then steers through the development of related theories and models of

promoting housing sustainability from technological, economic, social and

institutional aspects. Finally, the gaps in the existing theories and practice related to

widespread sustainable housing uptake are identified. These gaps serve as a roadmap

and enable further literature examination of research methodologies in Chapter 3 to

assist research design.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF HOUSING SUSTAINABILITY

2.2.1 Defining Sustainability

Humans nowadays are facing a dilemma between satisfying the current

generations and worrying about the future (Wedding, 2008). For example:

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are currently about two to three

times greater than the earth’s sink capacity (Lowe, 2006);

climate change is expected to bring more periods of extreme hot weather

in summer, with peak summer temperatures up to 7 degrees higher by the

2080s than today (Seyfang, 2009);

we currently use approximately 20% more resources, that is, natural

capital stocks, than are regenerated each year (Monfreda, et at., 2004); and

estimates suggest that the industrial world needs to reduce its material and

energy use by over 90% to meet the needs of future generations (Rees,

1999).

12 Chapter 2: Literature Review

These facts warrant the continuous endeavour of promoting sustainability in

the industrial world.

The term “sustainability” equates to “sustainable development” in the broad

sense (Goodland, 1995). While researchers have conceived a variety of definitions,

the concept of sustainability is fundamentally defined in Our Common Future (also

known as the Brundtland Report) (1987) as “a strategy or means to achieve

sustainability by optimising the relationship between the global society and its

natural environment with consideration of social, economic and environmental goals

of the society”. In resonance with this multiple bottom line principle, the

Commonwealth of Australia (1992) defines sustainable development as “using,

conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes,

on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the

future, can be increased”.

In comparison with the Brundtland Report that frames the concept of

sustainability as “industrial growth with less impact”, Birkeland (2008) suggests a

positive concept that allows people to improve life quality and advance ecosystem

health rather than alleviate the negative. Birkeland thus defines sustainability as

“improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of

supporting ecosystems”.

Since it is difficult to measure the connotations of sustainability within a strict

and single definition, multiple bottom lines have been introduced to benchmark

sustainable performance. Table 2.1 summarises the commonly used framework with

multiple bottom lines. The term “bottom line” originally derives from business where

success and failure are often defined by the bottom line. Compared with defining

success or failure by dollar amounts, the bottom line tells us more about what has

really happened with a project or a proposal as sensibilities broaden.

Take the original triple bottom line (TBL) approach for example. It uses an

economic dimension to measure the monetary performance of a project or venture,

an environmental dimension to measure the environmental impact, and a societal

dimension to measure the impact on society, often in terms of benefits provided to

those affected. This TBL approach establishes a framework in which the three

aspects are interrelated, which leads to an optimisation problem where, for example,

x units of economics are equal to y units of environmentalism. Through the trade-off,


TBL creates an approach in which sustainability is easy to rationalise (Elkington,

1994).

Table 2.1 Multi-dimensional Framework of Sustainability

Framework Dimensions

Original Triple Bottom

Line (Elkington, 1994) Economic, environmental, and social bottom lines

Sustainability Prism

(Spangenberg, 2002)

Economic, environmental, social and institutional

bottom lines

3Es (Wedding, 2008) Economy, environment and equity

3Ps (Elkington, 1994) People, profits and planet

2.2.2 Defining Sustainable Housing

The term “sustainability” is born from great devotion to protecting the

environment that humans rely on for the preservation of life. As a result, the

construction industry has received attention in the sustainability debate due to its

negative impacts on the environment as shown in Figure 2.1 (Newton et al., 2001;

Roodman et al., 1995). Specific concepts of “sustainable construction” and

“sustainable built environment” have thus been defined by scholars to guide the

implementation of sustainable buildings (Wilkinson & Reed, 2007). The

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction

(1999) defines sustainable construction as “the sustainable production, use,

maintenance, demolition, and reuse of buildings and constructions or their

components”. A sustainable built environment was described by Plessis (2007) as

“the contributions by buildings and the built environment to achieving components

of sustainable development”.

Among all kinds of buildings, residential buildings cause an absolute majority

(55%) of environmental impacts as opposed to commercial buildings (45%)

(Sullivan, 2007). This warrants a specific focus on the description of sustainability in

housing.


Figure 2.1. Environmental impact of the building industry (Newton et al., 2001; Roodman et al., 1995)

In reality, the reinvention of the relationship between the natural environment

and the human’s living surroundings has been carried out through the centuries. The

origin of sustainable design for homes perhaps dates back to before the 20th century,

when builder-architects started to construct the vernacular architecture using simple,

renewable and naturally insulating materials like adobe and passive strategies like

thick walls and natural ventilation to heat, cool and light buildings (Stang &

Hawthorne, 2005). Nevertheless, in the 1930s the advent of new building

technologies, such as air conditioning, and the increasing complexity of the industry

began to make stakeholders on the supply side ignore climate issues and the

integrative design process. The environmental movement did not develop further

until the 1970s when oil shortages stimulated interest in solar energy homes, and

took off again in the early 1990s after the Brundtland Report, broadening its focus to

consider environmental impacts and health benefits (Deneen & Howard, 2007).

The development of contemporary sustainable building can be divided into two

stages: “de-modernisation” and “ecological modernisation”. This is witnessed in the

notable example of promoting sustainable building in the Netherlands. In the first

“de-modernisation” stage, sustainable building solutions tended to explore options of

self-sufficiency. However, problems like conflicts among the different actors and

citizens’ reluctance to adopt an alternative lifestyle hindered the progress towards the

55%24%27%

12%30%68%

37% 40%20% 25%


mainstream (Melchert, 2007). Thus, Melchert pointed out that a new approach that

highlighted connections to networks of existing infrastructure as well as a consensual

policy emerged to embody the social and economic aspects of sustainability and

brought the development into the stage of “ecological modernisation”. In this stage,

people started realising that construction approaches and lifestyles did not have to

break away completely from modernity but rather that technologies could be adapted

towards managing the environmental impacts via a combination of passive, nature-

based and low technological approaches, and active state-of-the-art solutions and

techniques.

While the definition of sustainability remains broad, when it comes to the

housing industry, sustainability is labelled with different terms depending on the

context in which it is used. Dozens of previous studies addressed the concept with

specific connotations in an individual context, and oftentimes these concepts are used

interchangeably without clear boundaries. It is worth differentiating among the

various descriptors referenced in the literature. A summary of the primary definitions

is presented in Table 2.2.

Based on the same rationale, terms such as “zero-carbon”, “zero-energy” and

“high performance” are occasionally found bonded to sustainable housing when

implementing sustainable principles. Despite the complex nature of both the housing

industry and sustainability itself, the concepts and definitions in Table 2.2 show that

contemporary sustainability centres on reserving natural resources, saving energy

and cutting carbon emissions (UK Government, 2009).

Housing sustainability should not, however, cover only the “green” aspect or

energy-efficiency, but should include resource usage, natural and socio-cultural

systems, growth and economic demands (Cole, 2005). In addition, sustainable

housing should accentuate the needs of humans to live comfortably, in harmony with

our unique climate. Recent research has therefore developed deeper into the socio-

cultural implications of the sustainability framework.

For example, Chiu (2004) contends that the main goal of sustainable housing

development should be to address the needs of people, as well as the environment,

and that the environment must be preserved to ensure that future generations are able

to meet their housing needs.


Table 2.2 Sustainability Concepts in the Housing Industry

Concept Author & Date Definition

Sustainable

Home

Birkeland (2008) Designed and built to minimise its impact on the

environment and can respond to people’s

changing lifestyles and circumstances

Sustainable

Housing

O'Leary (2008) A house that embraces the principles of lower

environmental impacts through greater energy

efficiency, lower energy demand, and renewable

energy design

Sustainable

Housing

Ramsay (2002) Housing that meets the needs of present and

future generations, promotes efficient use of

resources, supports the well being of its

residents, and is accessible to all.”

Low-carbon

Housing

Lovell (2004) Housing which has lower greenhouse gas

emissions (principally carbon dioxide) compared

with an average new house built with one tonne

of carbon per year

Zero-Energy

Home

Panawek (2007) By combining these technologies, the result is a

completely energy self-sufficient home, where in

almost all cases the entire energy consumption

(heating, cooling and electricity) of the home is

provided by only renewable energy sources

Smart

Housing

Lovell (2004) Housing in which householders are not required

to modify their behaviour in order to become

less resource intensive

High

Performance

Building

Wedding (2008) A focus on building features which reduce

energy and water use while enhancing worker

health and productivity

Green

Housing

Schmidt (2008) A tripod of components including energy

efficiency, water and resource efficiency and

indoor air quality, with a focus on reducing a

building’s environmental footprint


As a result, many scholars began their research into sustainable housing per se,

but soon broadened their focus to include sustainable communities given the intricate

link between the house-home and the community, neighbourhood and city (Bergman

et al., 2008).

Considering the above discussion and the particular objectives and context of

this research, sustainable housing in this research is defined as residential buildings

that are designed and constructed using practical, affordable and durable

environmental solutions (HIA, 1999). It highlights housing that deliberately strives

for sustainability in a manner beyond conventional housing, encompassing

sustainable features ranging from high-end construction methods to factors that are

“low hanging fruit”. One typical example of such housing is the CW residential infill

development close to the Adelaide CBD. This development addressed environmental

sustainability through a variety of mainstreamed features including passive solar and

ventilation design, straw-bale construction and aerated concrete, a 5 KW solar

photovoltaic system, low-carbon transport planning, and water efficiency and

management. In terms of economic sustainability, the project also managed to

receive established market demand through factoring in ongoing cost savings and

reputation edge. Additionally, the development features a communal roof garden,

meeting room and library to provide dwellers a sense of community, which

reinforces the social aspect of sustainability.

2.3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA’S HOUSING SECTOR

Before further investigating possible solutions to the promotion of mutual

benefits for stakeholders in sustainable housing implementation, an examination of

the status and trends of sustainable housing development in the Australian housing

industry is essential.

2.3.1 Housing Sector Characteristics

The housing construction industry constitutes an important sector in the

national and local economy of Australia. Research indicates Australia had a housing

stock of 7.8 million dwellings until 2001. On average, approximately 145,000

dwellings were completed between 1991-92 and 2004-04, with a value of over 806

billion dollars (ABS, 2005). However, with Australia’s population expected to reach


35.5 million by 2056, it is not surprising that a dwelling stock deficit of

approximately 150,000 dwellings was still seen as of June 2010 (BIS Shrapnel,

2009). Despite the green-light speed of development, Rohracher (2001) found that

this sector traditionally has low levels of innovation, relies on mass production from

large suppliers, and separates design from construction – all incompatible with social

and ecological optimisation.

This lack of innovation could date back to the beginning of the contemporary

building construction. Prior to the 1930s, buildings were designed by architects who

were adept at understanding the whole building process. Their approach was

comprehensive by way of the architect having full knowledge of the building design

and construction. After the 1930s, the building profession moved away from the

architect as a generalist and more towards a specialist market of industry

professionals to meet the growing complexity of the industry and the rise in

technology. Engineers and contractors began to emerge in the field and the role of

the architect gradually took on more of a design role in the building process, leaving

the construction process to others.

Nowadays, the process includes regulatory bodies, builders, research and

development organisations, design professionals, manufacturers of materials,

components, tools and equipments, as well as homebuyers. Along with this division,

communication between the newly defined industry professionals began to decline

and soon to follow was a decline in the overall integrated building process (Panawek,

2007).

Additionally, the Australian construction industry features the use of

subcontractors and smaller firms (Toner et al., 2005). Those firms struggle with

human capital to keep up-to-date with advanced sustainable technologies, which

obstructs sustainable housing development. Australian capital cities also currently

face an over-supply of rental units, and house prices “are at unsustainably high

levels” as of 2005 (Oxley III, 2006). Since the lifecycle of sustainable housing

benefits typically offer long-term gains instead of short-term gains, it is the long-term

homeowner who actually benefits the most from sustainability. If this commitment is

missing, the benefits will be passed on to the next homeowner (van Bueren, 2007).

Therefore, without knowing when to move, the homebuyer will be less inclined to

pay for the extra upfront costs incurred by sustainability.


On the demand side, housing consumers usually have limited involvement in

design or components. They choose from what is available in the market (Yang &

Alder, 2005). Location and selling price are their major considerations. The best

argument for consumers to appreciate better design is to have people experience it

directly, coupled with hard data on the technical and fiscal performance of different

design options. This is because it is difficult to argue against a cost-effective design

strategy that works and can be seen just down the street. However, unlike other

industries, housing involves big-scale capitalisation from the supply side and

involves probably the biggest investment of a lifetime for most consumers.

Therefore, the selling market in the housing industry constrains innovation and

prevents consumers from enjoying multiple choices. Compared with other sectors

that have more green products with explicitly proven sustainable advantages, the

housing industry has not quite yet struggled through these challenges.

2.3.2 Trends in Policies and Technologies

Due to the pressure of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, and

the conservative nature of the construction industry, the stimulus for sustainable

housing development to date is still more regulative than market-driven in Australia.

The carbon price that will be introduced as a market mechanism in 2012 represents

the robust stance that Australia is taking on sustainability issues. This is expected to

force the capitalist economic systems to account for natural capital. Since the

Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirement on energy efficiency was released in

2003, an increasing number of assessment tools have emerged to benchmark housing

performance in terms of environmental sustainability. A nationwide mandatory

House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) prescribed in the BCA was employed in

2003 to address energy efficiency performance for new housing stock. These tools

typically set a rating target of a maximum number of stars from zero to measure

energy efficiency and water management. The rating normally depends on the layout

and orientation of the home, and the construction of the interior and exterior

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). Over the annual cycle of amendment in the past

decade, this residential sustainability measure has come a long way from 3.5 stars to

a 6-star rating in the major states of Australia. Based on NatHERS, various tools

were designed by local government mainly to address specific climate conditions.

For example, the National Australian Built Environment Rating System is managed


by the NSW Government, First Rate is managed by Sustainability Victoria,

AccuRate has been developed by CSIRO, and the Building Energy Rating Scheme.

The last three tools are being accredited for use under NatHERS to enhance

consistency.

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) also developed a voluntary

approach, called the Green Star-Multi Unit Residential, to promote market uptake.

Compared with the BCA, the Green Star system places an emphasis on social

sustainability by including management, indoor environment quality and innovation

in the criteria. For this reason, many professional consultants tend to prefer the Green

Building Council’s nine categories in the Green Star tool for describing a more well-

rounded sustainability (GBCA, 2011). A summary of the nine areas is shown in

Table 2.3.

Meanwhile, government fiscal incentives have been utilised to promote

sustainable construction, including grants for installing solar systems and water

tanks. No doubt these can provide a catalyst for sustainable housing development in

a market-driven economy. In line with the above eco-effectiveness principles, a

broad range of sustainable technologies have been applied and proven effective in

Australia (Rahman et al., 2005). Going through an incremental process, “low

hanging fruit” have already achieved commercial success and widespread

distribution in the marketplace. Table 2.4 summarises the most commonly used

technologies in Australia for achieving energy efficiency.

Despite the maturity of the sustainable measures in enhancing energy

efficiency, alternative energy sources are needed to sustain future generations. This

requires further research on solar panels, wind power, hydrogen and geothermal

systems. To date, the cost-benefit data of these cutting-edge technologies are not

convincing enough for the Australian housing industry to adopt into the mainstream.

For example, Choice Magazine in collaboration with the Alternative

Technology Association released a study of various payback schemes for the

installation of solar devices. The payback periods range from 5-6 years in New South

Wales and Canberra, to 45 years in Tasmania. This information shows a significant

disparity between the reality and the 2-3 year payback period as most schemes

advertised (Sheftalovich, Z., 2011).


Table 2.3 Elements of Environmental Sustainability - the GBCA Green Star System

Categories Connotation

Management Address the adoption of sustainable development principles from

project conception through design, construction, commissioning,

tuning and operation.

Indoor

Environment

Quality

Target occupant wellbeing and performance by addressing the

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, lighting, occupant

comfort and pollutants.

Energy

Target reduction of greenhouse emissions from building operations

by addressing energy demand reduction, use efficiency, and

renewable sources.

Transport

Address the reduction of demand for individual cars by both

discouraging car commuting and encouraging use of alternative

transportation.

Water

Address reduction of potable water through efficient design of

building services, water reuse and substitution with other water

sources (specifically rainwater).

Materials

Target resource consumption through material selection, reuse

initiatives and efficient management practices.

Land Use &

Ecology

Address a project's impact on its immediate ecosystem, by

discouraging degradation and encouraging restoration of flora and

fauna.

Emissions

Address point source pollution from buildings & building services to

the atmosphere, watercourse, and local ecosystems.

Innovation

Address marketplace innovation that fosters the industry's transition

to sustainable building.

Wind energy was also criticised for its fluctuating performance, sizable initial

outlay and noise problems. While geothermal and hydrogen energy can be appealing

choices, their average cost comes in at nearly twice that of conventional heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning systems (Building Design+Construction, 2011).


Table 2.4 Summary of Commonly Used Technologies

Technology and

design Description

Structural

insulation

Insulated panels and concrete forms are used for good thermal

design. They normally employ an “R” value to measure the

product’s resistance to heat transfer. Insulation efficiency has

positive correlation with the R value.

Orientation and

solar access

A north-facing house can maximise the solar access. By keeping

the living areas to the north, winter solar access can be

maximised while summer sun can be easily obstructed by using

eaves, verandahs or other shading devices. It enhances the

thermal performance in winter with considerable energy

reduction and facilitates high levels of natural light to improve

the indoor environment.

Thermal mass

The purpose of thermal mass is to store heat energy when it is

abundant (daytime) and release when it is scarce (nighttime),

thereby reducing the temperature extremes. A concrete slab on

the ground or masonry walls can act as a thermal mass.

Glazing of

windows, façade

technology

These technologies are used with a desire to reduce unwanted

solar heat gain and to maximise natural light. However, under

different climactic conditions, they are sometimes considered to

prevent heat loss in a house.

Solar harvesting

technology

Solar energy is the technology most frequently incorporated into

economically viable projects due to the fact that now it is

possible to produce 100% of a home’s electricity using

photovoltaics (PV) panels. To deal with the major problem of

unstable sunshine when needed, a grid-connected PV system that

will reserve excessive energy has been invented. Solar energy

can also help with water heating to reduce up to 30% of total

energy use.

Water

conservation

Water conservation includes low flow fixtures, rainwater

collection and grey water reuse. These methods save water for

daily use, and collect roof runoff for laundry and irrigation of the


garden.

Waste reduction

and recycling

Both the construction stage and operation stage could employ

waste minimisation. The former uses recycled materials such

as concrete with recycled aggregates from demolished

buildings, while the latter aims to properly process recyclables.

Energy efficient

appliances

Energy efficient appliances could include LED lighting or a 6-

star fridge. This would help alleviate the 27% of household

energy consumed from powering appliances. Placing smart

metering devices on appliances is also significant in monitoring

how efficiency changes.

Material intensity Low volatile organic compounds paints, recycle timer for

shutters, and 100% recycled materials in slab are good examples.

2.3.3 Industry and Market Adaptation

Under the legislative frameworks, hundreds of thousands of new dwellings

have been built with the BCA five stars or above standard. However, no specific

number has been officially released by federal or state authorities. In reality, the

pioneering motive of being part of an industry that values the environment appeared

to be a major reason for the housing industry to make “sustainable moves”. For

example, a professional organisation – Sustainable Homes – assisted with the

construction of 30 sustainable housing display projects across Queensland to lead the

housing industry. A diverse group of industry stakeholders started appreciating the

brand recognition from engaging in this government-endorsed sustainable home

program (Queensland Government, 2009). Sustainability-conscious financial

institutions were also seen to be providing a “green loan” with 0.5-1% reduced

interest rates on a new sustainable home.

Despite the increasing industry “green” sentiments, projects with officially

strong sustainability features, rather than meeting the BCA basic thresholds, are still

limited in the mainstream market. A study by Connection Research shows that

Australian consumers, although willing to participate, still have limited knowledge of

energy efficient technologies or schemes promoted by the government (Michaelis et

al, 2010). To provide the community with specific sustainability features through

clarified value-adding information, a sustainability declaration program was carried


out in Queensland in 2010 as a compulsory clarification during housing sales (Bryant

& Eves, 2011). A survey, however, indicated that 59.3% of home sellers have hardly

any awareness of the mandatory declaration. This figure for homebuyers is as high as

95.4%. It seems neither the top-down nor the bottom-up approach has turned into a

key determinant in the residential house purchase decision-making process. Housing

sustainability awaits market acceptance and education to bloom (Property Council of

Australia, 2011).

2.4 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH RELATED TO STAKEHODLER MUTUAL BENEITS IN SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Since little previous research has investigated the implementation of

sustainable housing from a “mutual benefits for multiple stakeholders” perspective,

the attempt to identify possible solutions towards mutual benefits starts with the

review of sustainable building development in general. Research journals and

dissertations were searched primarily through reputed academic search engines

including ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, Proquest and Springerlink.

The reviewed body of knowledge was also expanded from a focus on the housing

and the whole construction industry to other industries with successful experience in

promoting sustainability such as the automobile sector. Table 2.5 shows the

keywords generated under each category.

Three major categories of literature of sustainable building development

demonstrated the potentials of stakeholder mutual benefits: economic research,

barriers and drivers of sustainable housing development and related policymaking,

and collaborative theories. The following sections discuss the contribution and

limitation of the literature in detail and provide an overview of possible avenues to

tackle the research problem.

Table 2.5 Development of Targeted Keywords in Literature Retrieval

Reviewed areas Themes

Technical research Ecological technologies, design and rating mechanism

Economic research Multi-dimensional benefits of sustainable building, lifecycle

analysis, new economics of sustainability, natural capitalism,


Adam equity theory, business models of sustainable

development

Socio-cultural

research

Market-driven implementation, business-led implementation,

pull and push factors of sustainable building development

Institutional/policy

research

Collaborative planning, environmental collaboration, policy-

making, stakeholder network analysis, environmental/green

supply chain management, partnership/partnering

2.4.1 Economic Research

Quantifying multi-dimensional benefits of sustainability has also been a

priority of existing research because of its fundamental role in leading to a “win-win”

situation in the dynamic and complex housing supply chain. According to a United

Nations environmental program report, the negative effects of global warming may

cost the global economy US$300 billion a year as of 2050 (Birkeland, 2008). This

figure indicates how managing environmental issues will influence global

economics. However, in reality, the general perception is that internalising

sustainable practices into the housing construction industry translates into additional

cost. The difficulty for the capitalist economic systems to fully account for natural

capital is identified as a delicate obstacle (Wilkinson & Reed, 2007). Therefore,

helping industry practitioners understand the economic value that rests on sound

environmental and social practice lies at the heart of sustainable housing

development (Laszlo, 2003). Pursuing this aspiration, numerous researchers have

strived to manifest sustainable value with innovative economic interpretations and

benefit explorations. These innovative theories are examined in this section.

2.4.1.1 Economic Theory Research

The New Economics

The term “New Economics”, also known as “real-life economics”, emerged in

1984 to address hot-button issues such as international debt, local economic

resilience, valuing the environment, and building social cohesion. Different to

traditional economics that disregards everything it fails to measure, the new

economics cast an eye on those missing elements including how organisations work


(institutional economics), the contribution of nature (ecological economics) and

human behaviour (socio-economics) (Seyfang, 2009). In this regard, it resonates with

the TBL principle of sustainability, and broadens the meaning of wealth, work and

the use of money to represent sustainable value. Accordingly, the new indicator of

economic and social progress, the Measure of Domestic Progress, has been used to

embrace a wider set of components than covered in gross domestic product. This

theory helps to diffuse the benefits and facilitates the progress of a range of

consequent sustainable activities including sustainable food, currencies and of course

sustainable housing due to its closer linkage with environment and society.

Similarly, ecological economics introduced a series of innovative

methodological approaches for interpreting and assessing sustainability. Ecological

economics is understood as an attempt to refine and implement the broad vision of

sustainability advanced by the Brundtland Report. It has done so largely by providing

a bridge between economics and ecology (Sneddon et al., 2006).

Lovins et al. (2000) defined the practice of putting a price tag on green

buildings as natural capitalism. The problem with natural capitalism is that the

developed world is based predominantly on a capitalist market where money talks.

Natural capital in the form of environmental benefits cannot be quantified in terms of

money so the two markets of natural and financial capital exist in isolation, which

prevent sustainable practices from functioning fully in the real estate market. This

has been an ongoing problem surrounding green building and efforts should be made

to resolve this disconnect (Lovins et al., 2000).

Nevertheless, specific measurements that are designed for the construction

process and building life need further research before theories can be applied in the

industry. To this end, the emergence of lifecycle analysis (LCA) has, to a great

extent, bridged the gap between economic theories and the construction industry.

Lifecycle Analysis

Aiming to address the issue of temporal scale in sustainability, LCA has

become an important method of assessing impacts in the built environment since the

1990s. In the housing sector, a lifecycle approach refers to the practice of examining

economic (and environmental) costs and benefits over the lifetime of a house or

housing development. It consists of initial costs (design and construction), operating

costs (energy, water/sewage, waste, recycling and other utilities), maintenance,


repair, and replacement costs, and other environmental or social costs/benefits

(impacts on transportation, solid waste, water, energy, infrastructure, worker

productivity, outdoor air emissions, human health) (California Government, 2005).

This approach lines up long-term benefits with temporal cost and benefits, and

it has become an accepted method for comparing the environmental performance of

construction products. However, it has not tackled the challenge of low market

demand. Complicated enough is the fact that many homeowners do not stay in one

house for their whole life, while the LCA benefits of sustainable housing increase

over time for occupiers. It is the long-term homeowner who actually benefits the

most from building green. Unlike many other countries, Australia has an exceedingly

high level of rental rates in the residential building industry (Oxley III, 2006).

Therefore, the benefits will be easily passed on to the next homeowner. This restricts

the inclination of those who are not sure about the long-term plan to pay for the

upfront costs, and thus affects the market demand. This discrepancy continues to

prove to be an obstacle (van Bueren, 2007). Further understanding of inter-

stakeholder benefit flow is needed.

2.4.1.2 Benefit Studies

With the aid of a longitudinal approach such as LCA, researchers applied their

effort to unveiling the advantages of sustainable housing from a TBL angle based on

exemplar housings. Existing developments with sustainable features have

demonstrated multiple environmental, economic and social advantages in contrast

with conventional housing (Horton, 2005; Lorenz et al., 2007; Pilkington et al., 2011;

Yates, 2001). Table 2.6 shows a summary of these benefits.

It is worth mentioning that there are a good number of hidden advantages

existing in TBL boundaries, particularly between economic benefits and other TBL

dimensions (Yates, 2001). This reflects on the fundamental role of the TBL principle

to soften the definition of cost and benefits, and in turn measure values

interchangeably among environmental, social and economic dimensions. Taking the

increasing focus on public health as an example, the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory showed that improved ventilation systems alone reduce respiratory illness

by 9-20 percent, yielding a saving in the US of $6 to $14 billion per year. This figure

did not count the benefit of faster recovery from the same illness due to outdoor

views and connections to nature (Fisk, 2000). In effect, enhanced social benefits


often go hand in hand with economic benefits. Improved health conditions have been

proven financially attractive. Other instruments have been designed to establish

direct linkage between environmental and economic benefits. The upcoming carbon

tax in Australia showcases how this can be done in explicit ways.

Table 2.6 TBL Benefits from Engaging Sustainable Housing

TBL areas Benefits

Environment

al benefits

Controlling climate change: reductions in carbon production

Reduced resource depletion, increased energy production

Less negative impacts on biodiversity

Reduced pollution

Economic

benefits

Reduced operating and maintenance costs

Higher return on investment from potentially increasing market

value of property

Risk mitigation against future electricity prices and policies

Financial incentives such as green grants and tax breaks

Streamlined permits and approvals

Ability to assess capital

Enhanced market niche

Social

benefits

Reputation: environmental management and corporate image,

public relations

Community liveability

Functionality and comfort of end users

Health & wellbeing of end users

Despite increasing evidence of a number of benefits with quantitative data

because of the trans-discipline approach in economic models (i.e. reduced operating

and maintenance costs, more efficient resource use), other business benefits cannot

easily be quantified in terms of the financial aspects (including environmental

management and corporate image) and time period of these benefits (Yates, 2001).

Therefore, the complete value of sustainable housing remains difficult to justify to


sceptical investors and key industry stakeholders who tend to be focused on short-

term economic returns.

In addition, most researchers looked at benefits either on a general industry

base, or from each individual stakeholder’s point of view. Few benefit studies put

individual benefits together in a supply chain or network context. Although this

approach brings simplicity at the starting-point, it falls short in solving the conflicts

between quantifiable and unquantifiable, and short-term and long-term benefits. As

Shin et al. put it, “No single stakeholder in housing industry can thoroughly

appreciate the huge environmental and social advantage” (Shin et al., 2008). Each

stakeholder closely depends on others to realise their individual sustainable benefits.

Therefore, we contend an integrative way to look at stakeholders’ benefit flow is

needed in this research field. Social and institutional research has opened a new door

to this end due to its approaches to integrated thinking.

2.4.2 Barriers and Drivers of Sustainable Housing Development, and Corresponding Policymaking

2.4.2.1 Barriers and Drivers of Sustainable Housing Development

Current socio-cultural research provides another vision to measure people’s

interests and motivation in pursuing sustainable housing by examining attitudes and

perceptions of stakeholders when confronted with sustainable or ecological

innovations. Historically, understanding exactly what psychologically motivates and

hinders people to invest in innovations has been given prominence to accelerate

adoptions. Generally, these attitudinal and perceptive issues are identified as either

barriers or drivers of sustainable building development. Table 2.7 summarises the

most salient factors identified in Europe and America.

In the “driver” category, drivers could be classified into three groups:

legislative drivers, cultural drivers and business/financial drivers. Due to its identity

as a preservative innovation, the stimulative factors in the sustainable housing market

to date are much more regulative than market-driven (business/financial driven).

Cultural drivers in adding competitive advantages have emerged strongly, such as

communal and pioneering motives (Shin et al., 2008).


Table 2.7 Push and Pull Factors in Innovation Investment

Driver Barrier Context Author &

Date

Lowering costs Being part of an

industry that values the environment

Insufficient legislative or executive office support

Ineffective measurement studies/metrics

Industry fragmentation Internal policies and

constraints

Green Building Industry, US

McGraw-Hill Construction & US Green Building Councial, 2006

Human capital and knowledge

Supply chain collaboration and leadership

Unclear goals Regulatory confusion Absence of coherent energy

supply policy Lack of demonstrative data Weak research base

Housing Energy Efficiency, UK

Lowe & Oreszczyn, 2008

Public consultation and participation

Institutional inertia Opposition from vested

interests Lack of leadership and poor

administrative co-ordination

Sustainable building industry, Denmark

Jensen & Gram-Hanssen, 2008

Energy saving features Low running costs Good thermal

insulation

Occupiers of sustainable housing, UK

Barnes, 2007

Greater pan-industry communication

Open dialogue with government bodies

Fiscal system

Sustainable property industry, UK

Sayce, 2007

Increases in energy costs

Increased influence from customers

Sustainable building industry, Globally

LaSalle, 2007

Policies underrate the cost of implementation

Lack of inter-stakeholder collaboration

Lack of financial incentives Lack of awareness enablers

Sustainable building industry, UK

Adeyeye, Osmani & Brown, 2007

Ignorance by stakeholders Strategy conflicts,

inadequate client demand

Sustainable building industry, UK

Williams & Dair, 2007


In contrast, “darker green” cultural factors such as renewable energy supply,

eco ratings and ecologically-friendly building materials were rated much lower, each

being considered important by around just 40% of occupants (Barnes, 2007).

Although barriers exist regarding design, socio-cultural, legislative and financial

factors, a lack of awareness, knowledge or understanding of sustainable design were

identified as fundamental barriers in this area (Lutzkendorf & Lorenz, 2005;

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction,

1999; Vandevyvere & Neuckermans, 2005).

2.4.2.3 Policy-making

A large amount of research has attempted to design feasible regulatory

instruments and policies to cater to the general barriers and drivers of sustainable

housing development. In particularly, in Australia, the Housing and Urban Research

Institute (AHURI) conducted a series of studies to address benefits, rating tools,

consumer attitudes and behaviours, and environmental sustainability strategies for

policymaking in the context of community-based affordable housing (Blair et al.,

2004; Fielding et al., 2010). The policymaking to promote sustainable housing

development and maximise stakeholder benefits generally includes single-policy

responses and an integrated policy framework.

Single Policy Responses

Single-policy response can be categorised as institutional models or financial

models (van Bueren, 2007). These two models are often referred to as top-down

policies with mandatory attributes and bottom-up policies that stimulate uptake.

Institutional models include a vast spectrum of the construction process, from

legal regulations to patterns, habits or traditions of building practices. It is typically

represented by regulatory policies, include building energy codes, appliance

standards, interconnection standards for distributed generation equipment, and land-

use zoning to promote sustainable growth (Brown & Southworth, 2008).

Nevertheless, many shortcomings have been identified by researchers,

indicating that this approach alone could not be of enough help. For example,

legislation will often encapsulate the lowest common denominator as political

concerns and economic pressures operate to dilute ideals. Moreover, legislation is

notoriously static, and legislation tends not to be the best tool for fostering


innovation and advances in knowledge. Birkeland (2008) contends that regulation

constrains both suppliers and consumers, and can create “losers”. Thus, two

transformations in public policies were suggested by van Bueren (2007): from

prescription of means to performance requirements; and from regulation to market-

based and voluntary arrangements. In addition, legislation is still expected to ensure

compliance with given standards with effective verification procedures and

enforcement mechanisms (Warnock, 2007).

Financial models focus on incentives and communicative instruments, which

are considered to be strong catalysts for innovation and progress in a market-driven

economy. Common examples of fiscal incentives are listed in Table 2.8 (Warnock,

2007).

Table 2.8 Common Examples of Fiscal Incentives (Warnock, 2007)

Financial incentive Country

Grants for installing solar water heaters Australia, NZ

Rates subsidies to encourage high levels of insulation

Landfill taxes for building and construction waste Netherlands

Investment grants for ecologically sound homes

Guarantees to banks investing in sustainable housing

projects

Sweden

Guaranteed fees for individuals who sell solar power back

to the national grid from domestic systems Germany

Reduced VAT rate for systems that increase energy

efficiency UK

However, as argued by Warnock (2007):

Fiscal measures are inevitably politically contentious and have to be

considered carefully by government. In altering the fiscal equation, such

measures produce social and economic ramifications and are accompanied

by administrative burdens. Government will generally only commit public

money to schemes if regulation and education are incapable of achieving the


desired results. In addition, market mechanisms tend to attract the criticism

that they fail to provide an environmental bottom-line.

Blazey and Gillies (2008) examined the role of mandatory building codes and

fiscal instruments for sustainable building practices in Australia. They conclude that

there is less need to provide financial incentives when compliance with the code is a

condition of securing construction approval from the local planning authority for new

construction.

Trends towards an Integrative Framework

Carter (2008) believes that the single-policy approaches are either too broadly

aimed at the policy level, or overly complex and detailing vast lists of actions. There

is a lack of integrated frameworks to assist sustainable housing delivery throughout

the whole process.

The introduction of integrated frameworks was originally supported by a policy

concept named “ecological modernisation”, which was first established in the

Netherlands to facilitate development based on all three dimensions in the TBL

approach. This concept describes how environmental considerations are increasingly

integrated into modern society’s institutions and highlights new types of cooperation

and new applications of economic and market dynamics (Jensen & Gram-Hanssen,

2008).

Furthering this approach, researchers proposed several frameworks centred on

policy systemisation. The Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing

Countries suggested a strategy for addressing current challenges by developing an

R&D agenda, based on a matrix of immediate, medium-term and long-term

technological, institutional and value enablers (Du Plessis, 2002). Warnock (2007)

proposes a simple, practical structure for integrating policies and instruments by

accentuating assessment tools as the core instrument. He argues that this mandatory

approach would line up fiscal measures and public procurement, and ensure that

change occurs at an effective pace. However, Warnock supports industry in making

those changes before the measures become legislated or codified, during which

process fiscal incentives can play a decisive role. Osmani and O’Reilly (2009)

recommend a joined-up and holistic approach that is guided by comprehensive

legislative measures. Willkinson (2007) also favours the cost-comparison data as the


basis of the reform of environmental policy by including the sustainability criterion,

valuing environmental effects, and making use of market incentives.

Although the above frameworks are expected to continue to play an essential

role in promoting the market uptake of sustainable housing, it is a paradox that

holistic frameworks are difficult to implement and sometimes ill-structured (Oxley

III, 2006). This is first because sustainable housing is a topic in which many

disciplines (including social wellbeing, economics, engineering, planning, and urban

development) have a stake as evidenced with the multi-dimensional factors discussed

in Section 2.4.2. Those dimensions consist of multiple cause-effect chains that are

complex and difficult to determine unambiguously, especially when problems are

dealt with at different administrative levels (van Bueren & ten Heuvelhof, 2005).

More importantly, the current integrated approaches mostly fail in operation

without systemised efforts spent on the specific demands of individual stakeholders

(van Bueren, 2007). Van Bueren (2007) emphasised the significance of including

various stakeholders in the strategy-making process of sustainable housing

development. This has become a major obstacle to joint endeavours towards

stakeholder mutual benefits and sustainable housing development.

2.4.3 Collaborative Theories

The third and most important branch of knowledge associated with stakeholder

mutual benefits is the theory of contemporary collaboration. Collaboration is playing

an increasingly important role in dealing with environmental issues where a wide

array of issues and stakeholders exist (Margerum, 2007). Different terms have been

used across academic boundaries to describe collaborative typology, mainly

including collaborative planning (Healey, 2006; Margerum, 2002), partnering

(Construction Industry Institute, 1989; Hong-Minh et al., 2001), and supply chain

management (Harland, 1996; Woodhead et al., 2009). Although different authors

emphasise different aspects, they share a core question: How can stakeholders come

to agree on matters of concern within a dynamic and increasingly complex society?

(Allmendinger, 2009).

According to Margerum (2008), the collaboration typology enables

stakeholders to better understand the challenges and create appropriate types of

collaborations for four major reasons. First, collaboration involves a vast number of


cross-sectoral stakeholders and interest groups with a stake in the outcome (Innes &

Booher, 1999). Second, collaboration promotes consensus building among

participants in an intensive and creative way, and in turn leads to more creative

solutions and increased likelihood of acceptance (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000;

Weber, 2003). Additionally, it works to achieve consensus on problems, goals and

proposed actions (Weber, 2003; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Finally, collaboration

entails a “sustainable” commitment to problem solving (Gray, 1989; Selin & Chavez,

1995).

To this end, establishing stakeholder mutual benefits for sustainable housing

implementation conceptually overlaps with these collaboration theories in many

principles. Since literature that links the above three areas with sustainable housing

development is scarce, this section presents the application of these collaborative

theories in general to provide insights into systematic thinking and possible solutions

to the problem of gaining mutual benefits for this research. It first briefly reviews the

major ideas of different collaborative theories in the general industrial world, and

then provides a critique and extracts common themes to shed light on stakeholder

mutual benefits.

2.4.3.1 Collaborative Planning: the Cornerstone of Collaborative Theories

Collaborative planning is often regarded as the fundamental planning theory

related to the networked society and the industrial world in general. This is owed to

its focus on “creating fair and inclusive institutional settings for deliberations among

public and private stakeholders in the shared but dynamic and conflict-ridden

environment” (Healey, 2006; Margerum, 2011). Various terms are used in the same

realm, including integrated management (Born and Sonzogni, 1995; Margerum,

1999), network theory (Teisman, 1992; Jupp, 2010) and environmental collaboration

(Bayer, 2001). Collaborative planning is more likely to achieve stakeholder

objectives because participants identify reciprocal understanding, shared knowledge

and mutual trust and goals (Allmendinger, 2009; Margerum, 2002).

In collaborative planning, a good plan is one that “responds to the interest of all

stakeholders and creates joint benefits. A good plan produces learning and positive

relationships”. Such a “good plan” differentiates itself from “the political influence

style” in planning (Innes & Gruber, 2005).


2.4.3.2 Partnering and Supply Chain Management: Popular Collaborative Theories in the Construction Domain

Partnering is defined as a long-term commitment between two or more

organisations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by

maximising the effectiveness of each participant’s resources (Mohd et al., 2010).

This requires changing the traditional relationships to a shared culture without having

regard to organisational boundaries. The partner relationship is based upon trust,

dedication to common goals, and an understanding of each other's individual

expectations and values. Partnering can enhance performance in the construction

industry in two ways. Firstly, partnering creates relationships between the various

disciplines within the construction industry, and highlights trust, mutual

commitment, understanding of each other's individual expectations and an open

exchange of information with clear upfront problem resolution (Hong-Minh et al.,

2001). Secondly, partnering offers effective ways to verify and promote innovation.

Expected benefits from partnering and collaboration include improved efficiency and

cost effectiveness, increased opportunity for innovation, and continuous

improvement of quality products and services (Construction Industry Institute, 1989).

Since the partnering mostly defines the collaboration in one-off construction

projects, an outlook to cover the broader and complex construction supply chain

emerged (Thorpe, Dainty & Hatfield, 2003). An OECD report defined a supply chain

as a “network of facilities and distribution channels that encompasses the

procurement of materials, production and assembly, and delivery of product or

service to the customer” (OECD, 2001). This definition accentuates the role of

human relationships within a purposeful network in improving the effectiveness of

commodity delivery. Supply chain management (SCM) theories brought the

commodity delivery process to a new level by highlighting “the management of a

network of interconnected businesses involved in the ultimate provision of

product and service packages required by end customers” (Harland, 1996). The

move toward the adoption of SCM relationships relates to collaborative theories

through leadership, facilitation, training and incentives, and to replace short-term

contractual-driven project-by-project adversarial relationships with long-term,

multiple-project relationships based on trust and cooperation. It includes the

restructuring and integration of project processes and supply networks with fewer

strategic supplier partners (Holti et al., 1999).


2.4.3.3 Sustainable Supply Chain and Environmental Collaboration: the Adaptation of Collaborative Theories to Sustainability

As environmental pressure escalates and sustainability becomes a buzz word,

greening the supply chain has become a major concern in many parts of the globe.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) accordingly emerged with its roots in

supply chain management, and the extension of SCM to TBL aspects of

sustainability. SSCM is described as “the strategic achievement and integration of

an organisation’s social, environmental, and economic goals through the systemic

coordination of key inter-organisational business processes to improve the long-term

economic performance of the individual company and its value network” (Carter &

Rogers, 2008; Seuring & Müller, 2008).

Successful experience of SSCM in the automobile industry, such as the energy-

efficient cars, shed light for the housing industry owing to the two-fold common

grounds. Firstly, the varying parts of the delivery process have made the supply chain

of both industries cumbersome. Secondly, the green supply chain of both industries

involves a longer lifecycle for their end user to consume the green products (Olugu et

al., 2011). Toyota set good examples in this realm by finding a unique yet effective

way to manage its environmental supply chain, commonly known as the “Toyota

Way”. A “4P” model lies in the core of the Toyota way, which includes a four-step

hierarchy of philosophy, process, people and partners, and problem solving. The four

steps respectively touch on the solutions of long-term thinking, eliminating waste,

respect, growing partnerships, and continuous improvement and learning. One

prominent feature of this model is turning other stakeholders into customers by

sharing benefits up-front (Liker, 2004).

For the similar concerns on the devastating environmental issues, the

environmental collaboration theory was brought to light for the win-win-win strategy

(Bayer, 2001). It sets out stakeholders, identifies issues and common ground, defines

a matrix for information gathering, sets the legal background, sets an agenda for

discussing issues and attempts to resolve disputes before they occur. Its supporters

see this kind of collaboration as valuable in four contexts:

building mutual understanding by fostering exchange of information

and ideas among stakeholders and providing a mechanism for resolving

uncertainty;


providing a mechanism for effective decision-making through processes

that focus on common problems and build support for decisions;

generating a means of getting necessary work done by coordinating cross-

boundary activities, fostering join management activities; and

developing the capacity of agencies, organisations and communities to

deal with the challenges of the future.

As discussed above, most collaborative efforts involve the creation of

stakeholder groups to review information and knowledge, build consensus, and work

jointly on solving complex problems. However, one key theme is that effective

collaboration lies in understanding that collaboration should not be limited to a

“consensus” process. Consensus processes are meant to seek unanimous agreement

and shared vision among all interested parties. Margerum (2008) points out that most

collaborative efforts reported in the environmental management literature fall into

this category of “consensus” outcomes. Sometimes this consensual agreement is the

least successful outcome because it potentially produces the lowest common

denominator solutions (Innes, 2004). Healey (2003) supported the argument that

“consensus” should be a starting point and the basic idea of collaborative planning.

She advocated a go-beyond idea to mediate between conflicting social interests, and

ultimately create mutual actions. Innes (2004) pointed out that the key to effective

planning practices is stakeholders having “both something to give to and something

to gain from other stakeholders”. Although this second category of “collaborative

and communicative” processes may not reach specific agreements or resolve a

specific problem, such a process is often grounded on the consensus outcome. It is

the skilful facilitation of both consensus outcome and collaborative outcome that

makes the whole more than the sum of individual interests.

2.5 RECAP OF RESEARCH GAPS

The review of the three categories of literature reveals three common needs

toward more integrated, holistic and participatory approaches in addressing

stakeholder mutual benefits for sustainable housing implementation. These three

needs direct the establishment of the research objectives in Chapter 1. They revolve

around the two-fold investigation of collaborative theories in sustainable housing

implementation: (1) establishing the “consensus” on critical factors of sustainable


housing development; and (2) developing the “collaborative and communicative”

actions based on balanced stakeholder needs to convey the consensus knowledge.

These three needs are set out in more detail as follows.

2.5.1 Gap in Common Understanding of the Challenges to Achieving Sustainability Benefits and their Mutual Influences

Although a large amount of international work has identified benefits and

factors affecting the implementation of sustainable housing, they mostly focused on

the overall drivers and barriers of sustainable housing development. There has been

little literature that examines the linkage between their overall factors and how they

affect stakeholder benefits. Moreover, limited exploration of the mutual influences of

the overall factors leads to a lack of guidance for the actions of stakeholders. This is

because the dimensions of sustainable value exceed the traditional boundaries,

requiring consideration of external factors such as the softened format of input and

output of corporations. Confronted with a complex system with systemic causes and

effects, neither the commonly identified “top 3” factors nor the “checklist” is

adequate to clarify the layers of driving forces and priorities. In fact, random,

excessive and sometimes convoluted factors could in contrast obstruct the joint

endeavour.

The above issue deserves more scrutiny to identify the challenges for

stakeholders to achieve benefits from sustainable housing development, and

understand the mutual influence (driving power and dependence) between factors

affecting stakeholder benefits. This discussion about what influences stakeholders’

benefits from sustainability and how to prioritise and tackle the challenges will

provide the basis for establishing common knowledge and developing a shared vision

of sustainable collaboration and benefits; this, in turn, will supplement the

application of collaborative theories in sustainable housing development on the first

“consensus” or “common” level.

2.5.2 Gap in Employing Comparative Study to Examine Multiple Stakeholders’ Perceptions on Benefits and Roles

The second gap concerns the imperative to establish collaborative theories in

sustainable housing development on the further “collaborative” or “done by each

toward the others” level. Currently, there has been little focus on the diverse

perceptions of sustainability benefits and roles in the housing supply chain.


Woodhead et al. (2009) pointed out that the key challenges when working with

messy problems are: differing stakeholder and related various societal expectations,

unquestioned assumptions, and misaligned policies and incentives. A successful

delivery of a housing project entails the participation of government agencies,

developers, builders, architects, engineers, financial institutions, real estate agents,

and homebuyers. Confronted with the complex decision-making situations of

sustainability, key stakeholders often lack the willingness to balance benefits,

burdens and long-term goals, and to take the other’s perspective and reconcile

differences. This creates asymmetry of information and knowledge concerning

sustainable building, and asymmetry of costs and benefits in this area (Barlow &

Ozaki, 2003; Laffont & Martimort, 2002). As a result, the stakeholders, particularly

housing industry practitioners, individually claim to support the notion of green

buildings but each say they lack the power to change the marketplace (Sayce, 2007).

In fact, no single stakeholder or entity can control the issue or determine its outcome.

Stakeholders closely depend on one another for the realisation of their individual

needs and goals.

For these reasons, more research is needed about the diverse perspectives,

similarities and differences of stakeholders’ roles, work process, and benefit flows

from engaging in sustainable housing via a comparative analysis. This process to

engage multiple actors in jointly diagnosing problems and exploring solutions is

essential in achieving a commonly agreed guideline and a win-win situation using

dynamic supply chain collaboration.

2.5.3 Gap in Consolidating Existing Policies and Potential Collaborative Actions with a Systematic Framework

Upon the examination of stakeholder mutual benefits on two dimensions of

collaborative theories, a practical framework to guide stakeholder actions in

operational terms needs to be further established. Margerum (2002) argued that “a

collaborative approach tens to emphasize a holistic approach that gives equal weight

to a range of objectives”. Therefore, the criterion for collaborative planning should

not be how to create one dominant policy response but to integrate a range of policy

responses to address common goals and balance mutual needs. It should factoring in

the interactions between the solutions, and systemises existing and potential


strategies, so everyone’s needs and preferences will be considered rather than

“averaged out”, and thus stakeholder-specific solutions can be created.

2.6 SUMMARY

This chapter examines the extant research on the current unproductive situation

in which many believe that promoting housing sustainability and running a

successful business are mutually exclusive. The research question is identified: how

sustainable housing provides heterogeneous stakeholders their specific benefits and

interests using the dynamic nature of the housing supply chain and sustainability,

instead of being hindered by the nature. The research therefore highlights the

importance of establishing a framework for mainstreaming sustainable housing,

which could demonstrate the highest degree of mutual benefits, or multi-win

situation, via a synergy of key stakeholders in a dynamic supply chain. The research

design is outlined in detail in Chapter 3.


Chapter 3: Research Design 43

Chapter 3: Research Design

3.1 INTRODUCTION

A well-grounded research design is the foundation necessary to convert the

research proposition described in Chapter 1 to meaningful conclusions. The design

will encompass clear objectives derived from the research proposition, indicate the

philosophical aspect of gaining knowledge, that is, methodology, and select and

justify the research methods and instruments (Evans & Gruba, 2003).

To design an efficient and inclusive research plan, this chapter first reviews the

research proposition. Section 3.3 then embarks on a detailed consideration of the

basic research characteristics that embody the research methodology. This relates to

the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge. Section 3.4 then

goes further in-depth to select and justify the research methods used to acquire

mutual-benefit knowledge. It also presents the theoretical protocol to guide data

collection and analysis. Finally, the chapter outlines the overall research process.

3.2 RESEARCH PROPOSITION

The research design involves a series of decision-making choices regarding

data collection and analysis methods, and most importantly the rationale underlying

these choices. Since the various methods each have their own strength, no method is

inherently superior to any other. Consequently, what is most important is whether the

selected methods could enable the researcher to answer the research question, rather

than a label that is attached to a particular method. It is therefore necessary to

reinforce the research proposition drawn from the literature review as shown in

Figure 3.1.

3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Rigorous methodologies and methods centred on the research proposition will

warrant confident establishment and advancement in the body of construction

knowledge (Fellows & Liu, 2008).

44 Chapter 3: Research Design

Figure 3.1. Research proposition

However, one problem has been the distinction between methodology and

method. Methodology is defined as the way knowledge is acquired, how theories are

built and tested, and the relationship between theoretical perspectives and research

problems (Blaikie, 2000). In social science, it normally means the philosophical

stance taken by the researcher (Evans & Gruba, 2003). This stance informs the

researcher’s choice of data collection and analysis methods. To this end,

methodology comes before method. On the other hand, the research methods are

Research Question

Is it possible to develop a mutual-benefit framework to promote voluntary

adoption of sustainable housing by facilitating the understanding of sustainable

values, guiding possible stakeholder collaboration and assisting the

systemisation of the existing policies and instruments?

Research Aim

Investigate the commonly agreed factors of sustainable housing development

and potential collaborative strategies to promote stakeholder mutual benefits.

Research Objectives

Examine multiple challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable housing

development for key stakeholders (CABs) in terms of the significance,

current status and correlation;

Identify the diversity of key stakeholders in understanding their different

roles, benefits and risk in sustainable housing development, and value gaps

of CABs;

Identify critical factors of achieving mutual benefits (CFAMBs) of engaging

in sustainable housing based on shared visions of CABs and balanced

stakeholder needs, and accordingly develop a systematic mutual-benefit

framework to guide stakeholder actions.


specific ways of answering the research question. They focus on the process of the

research design.

Therefore, the following section examines seven methodological issues

including research philosophy, research approach, the purpose of the research, type

of investigation, extent of researcher interference, study setting, unit of analysis and

time horizon (Saunders et al., 2009; Sekaran, 2006). These research characteristics

lay the foundation for the overall research design and underpin the choice of research

methods, and form the body of research methodology. It is noted that the

characteristics within each dimension should not be thought of as mutually

exclusive; rather, it is possible to combine these traits within the same piece of

research (Kothari, 2008).

3.3.1 Research Philosophy

The over-arching term “research philosophy” contains assumptions about the

way in which the researcher views the world. This philosophical commitment has

significant impact on the relationship between the targeted body of knowledge and

the process by which it is developed (Johnson & Clark, 2006). Saunders et al. (2009)

contend that there are four philosophies in management research: positivism, realism,

interpretivism and pragmatism. Although the superiority of these four philosophies

depends on the research questions, Saunders et al. suggest two major ways of looking

at the research philosophy: ontology and epistemology. The former relates to “the

researcher’s view of the nature of reality or being”, while the latter “concerns what

constitute acceptable knowledge in a field of study”. A comparison by Saunders et al.

of the four philosophies based on ontology and epistemology is summarised in Table

3.1.

This research is carried out to deliver a multi-faceted solution, that is, a mutual-

benefit framework, for practical problems, namely stakeholders’ private benefits and

society’s environmental needs, in the housing industry and organisations, while the

fundamental or pure research generally focuses on generalisations of a theory.

Kothari (2005) defined this kind of research as applied research as opposed to

fundamental research. The relatively new domain of knowledge existing in this

particular field warrants multiple and integrated perspectives from all key

stakeholders in sustainable housing development. Therefore, the research philosophy

for this research is pragmatism. Pragmatism argues that it is possible to work with


variations in epistemology and ontology if required to answer the research question

in such ways. This proves the legitimacy of a mixed method within one study, which

has been widely used in relevant research in investigating sustainability (van Bueren,

2007; Williams & Dair, 2007).

Table 3.1 Comparison of Research Philosophies in Management Research (Saunders et al., 2009)

Types Ontology Epistemology

Positivism

External, objective and

independent of social

actors

Only observable phenomena can provide

credible data, facts. Focus on causality and

low like generalisations, reducing

phenomena to simplest elements

Realism

The objectives exist

independently of

human thoughts and

beliefs or knowledge

of their existence, but

are interpreted through

social conditioning

Observable phenomena provide credible

data, facts. Insufficient data means

inaccuracies in sensations. Alternatively,

phenomena create sensations that are open

to misinterpretation. Focus on explaining

within a context

Interpretivism

Socially constructed,

subjective, may

change, multiple

Subjective meanings and social

phenomena. Focus upon the details of a

situation, a reality behind these details,

subjective meanings motivating actions

Pragmatism

External, multiple,

view chosen to best

enable answering of

research question

Either or both observable phenomena and

subjective meanings can provide

acceptable knowledge dependent upon the

research question. Focus on practical

applied research, integrating different

perspectives to help interpret the data

3.3.2 Research Approach

The research approach determines how to approach data collection and analysis

in order to build or test the theory for a research (Saunders et al., 2009). This


includes whether a research project should use an inductive or deductive approach.

Inductive research seeks to formulate a theory from a number of observations or

instances; while deduction involves the development of a theory that is subjected to a

rigorous test (Yin, 2009). This research combines elements of both at different

stages.

As stated earlier, the pragmatism philosophy supports a variation of approaches

and methods in finding appropriate ways to answer the research question. This

research evaluating individual perspectives on benefits based on a theoretical

protocol consisted of a combination of factors extracted from the literature. This

process is deductive in nature. However, this research as a whole is inductive in that

the formulation of a mutual-benefit framework for stakeholders is a process of

induction wherein the practitioners’ opinions are explored, categorised and

synthesised. There have been no existing theories connected to the development of a

systematic framework for sustainable housing development in Australia (Flick,

2009).

3.3.3 The Purpose of the Research

The categorisation of research purpose mostly adopted in existing methodology

literature is the three-fold model of exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purpose

(Saunders et al., 2009). Exploratory research inclines to clarify and explore an idea,

event or poorly understood phenomenon, or to develop propositions for further

enquiry. It highlights “what is happening” questions, using literature study,

observation and different kinds of fact-finding surveys or enquiries (Sekaran, 2006).

It is a particularly useful approach if not much information is available and

researchers wish to clarify their understanding of a problem. A descriptive study

attempts to determine or describe the characteristics of variables of persons, events or

situation (Saunders et al., 2009). Descriptive research is often employed before or

following exploratory or explanatory research, answering who, what, where, when

and how questions. It constructs paradigms that offer a more complete theoretical

picture through either qualitative or quantitative data. Explanatory research usually

tries to explain the nature of certain relationships, or establish the differences among

groups or the independence of two or more factors in a situation (Sekaran, 2006).

This research is mainly descriptive, since it draws data from industry

perceptions to fill the gap of limited literature regarding mutual benefits from


engaging in sustainable housing. However, it shows its explanatory nature along the

journey to achieve Objective 1 where the significance and interrelationship of

benefit-associated factors are studied. In addition, validating the final framework

involves a detailed description of the elements and procedures of the framework,

which defines its descriptive character.

3.3.4 Type of Investigation

According to the “cause-effect” nature of investigation, research falls in either

causal study or non-causal study. The causal study is conducted when it is necessary

to establish a definitive cause and effect relationship. The non-causal or correlational

study, on the other hand, engages in defining the critical factors that are associated

with the problem, which could be multiple in a chainlike fashion. As stated in

Chapter 1, this research deals with issues originating from two complex systems:

sustainable value and construction supply chain. Each system contains multiple

cause-effect linkages. Therefore, the type of investigation adopted for this research is

non-causal.

3.3.5 Researcher Interference and Study Settings

Due to the correlational nature of the investigation, this research is conducted

in the natural environment of corporate operations. In other words, the research

activities are carried out with minimal interference into the industry’s activities, as

opposed to causal investigation where researchers manipulate certain variables in

order to test the effects on the dependent variables. Following the same logic is the

non-contrived study setting of this research where the investigation occurs in the

natural environment. This is in contrast with a contrived study setting where studies

are carried out in an artificial manner (Sekaran, 2006).

3.3.6 Unit of Analysis

Unit of analysis can be defined as the subject investigated in accordance with

the research problem (Collis & Hussey, 2009). It might be an individual or a set of

individuals, an event, an objective or even a relation. It is ideal to choose a unit of

analysis at the lowest level as possible in light of the specific research aim and focus

(Saunders et al., 2009).

It is recommended that researchers ascertain the unit of analysis as early as the

research questions are being determined, since many critical components of the


research are derived from the scale and level of selected unit of analysis. These

critical components include the data collection methods, sample size, and even the

research variables (Sekaran, 2006).

Based on the three research objectives in addressing stakeholder perceptions on

factors of sustainable housing development, their roles, benefits and potential

strategies, the unit of analysis is individuals (government agencies officials and

housing industry practitioners); and the organisations (stakeholders) they belong to.

3.3.7 Time Horizon

Depending on the frequency of data collection needed to extract research

findings, a research project could be either cross-sectional, where data collection

represents a snapshot of one point in time, or longitudinal if phenomena or activities

are examined over an extended period of time to produce a “diary perspective”

(Saunders et al., 2009). The empirical study of this research provides a “snapshot” of

people’s perceptions on the current status of sustainable housing development and is

cross-sectional.

3.4 RESEARCH METHODS

Selection of the research method should be guided by the research questions

and objectives, the philosophical underpinnings, the extent of existing knowledge

and the amount of available time and resources (Saunders et al., 2009). The choice of

specific research instruments and data analysis techniques follows the selection of

the research methods.

Having identified the research objectives and philosophical underpinnings, this

section starts with a brief review of methods available in the literature and

subsequently identifies the particular methods for this research. It then introduces the

analytical protocol and outlines the research process.

3.4.1 Review of Existing Research Methods

The literature in the field of perception evaluation, factors investigation and

policy examination provides various methods to guide data collection and analysis.

Many related studies generally use both quantitative and qualitative methods to

develop corresponding arguments. The most commonly used strategies are surveys

based on questionnaire, interview and Delphi studies, and case studies (Adeyeye et


al., 2007; Crabtree, 2005; Grosskopf & Kibert, 2006; Ji, 2007; Lorenz et al., 2007;

Lowe & Oreszczyn, 2008; Manoliadis et al., 2006; O'Leary, 2008; Rid, 2007).

Scholars have also provided good examples of using a detailed literature study or

working experience when it comes to exploring the influence factors and identifying

policy trends and effectiveness in the sustainable housing market (Blazey & Gillies,

2008; Brown & Southworth, 2008; Gane & Hefferan, 2007; Sayce, 2007; van

Bueren, 2007; Vandevyvere & Neuckermans, 2005; Warnock, 2007; Wilkinson &

Reed, 2007). Additionally, grounded theory is adopted in building frameworks via

various stakeholders’ perceptions (Cater & Fortune, 2008; Zhexembayeva, 2008). In

fact, the research methods should not be mutually exclusive as long as they serve the

research proposition (Saunders et al., 2009). For example, action research was

employed as part of the case study when investigating stakeholder management

(Yang et al., 2010).

As stated in Section 1.2, the research question centres around establishing a

multi-faceted framework to deal with the two complex systems underlining the

mutual-benefit issues of sustainable housing development. When dealing with this

kind of multi-faceted research question, or conducting a framework-oriented

research, the mixed-method approach is considered appropriate and effective

(Saunders et al., 2009). As opposed to the multi-method approach where either a

collection of quantitative or qualitative methods are used, the mixed method

approach uses both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques and

analysis procedures either at the same time (parallel) or one after the other

(sequential). The former involves the generation of data in the quantitative form,

which can be subjected to rigorous quantitative analysis in a formal and rigid

fashion. The latter is concerned with the subjective assessment of attitudes, opinions

and behaviour. This mixed-method approach is not uncommon. For example, the

research design by van Bueren (2007) comprised interviews, a small literature study

and a workshop, to generate and filter effective actions towards the profitability of

sustainable housing. Williams and Dair (2007) also used a mixed method by

conducting literature reviews, case studies, surveys and interviews as well as peer

reviews as a tool for organising the data for analysis. In particular, when building

systematic thinking for a complicated supply chain problem, Woodhead et al. (2009)

suggested the following outline of the critical analysis strategy:


Stage 1: Create conditions for collaboration and systemic thinking

Dimension A: Build knowledge about the organism

Dimension B: Build mutual knowledge with the key participants

Stage 2: Critically analyse supply chain and transformational projects

Stage 3: Capture emergent strategies

This analysis strategy resonates with the two-fold core principles of

collaborative theories: (1) establishing the “consensus” on the multi-dimensional

factors of sustainable housing development; and (2) developing the “collaborative

and communicative” actions based on balanced stakeholder needs to convey the

consensus knowledge. It is therefore used as a reference for method selection in

order to achieve the three research objectives as stated at the beginning of the

chapter.

3.4.2 Selection of Research Methods

The method of choice for this research draw insights from the above literature

and particularly Woodhead et al.’s analytical strategy in order to achieve the three

objectives as stated in Section 3.2. A mixed-method approach is taken, consisting of

a quantitative questionnaire survey, a qualitative interview and qualitative case study.

The description and key features of each method are shown in Table 3.2. It is worth

mentioning that traditionally the term “survey” could refer to both interviews and

question-answer questionnaires. In this research, the term survey is restricted to

questionnaire, structured observation and structured interview as suggested by

Saunders et al. (2009), which distinguishes itself from in-depth or semi-structured

interviews.

The three selected methods were systemised into two research phases of this

research: the framework development and the framework testing. The framework

development process corresponds with Woodhead et al.’s stage 1 analysis in

addressing two dimensions of a complex organism, which in the research presented

here are the stakeholder mutual benefits from engaging in sustainable housing.

Dimension A entails a critical analysis to build shared knowledge about

sustainable value itself (complex system No. 1), which, as per this research, is the

significance, relationships and solutions of the challenge of achieving benefits (CAB)


from sustainable housing development. A quantitative survey is appropriate for

extracting abstract and complex perceptions of CABs, while a qualitative approach

for the interview is appropriate to further explain the current practices and solutions

of the benefit-associated factors based on the survey findings. The use of qualitative

data could help explain the relationships between quantitative variables (Saunders et

al., 2009).

Table 3.2 Prospective Research Strategies for this Research

Research

method

Brief description Key features

Questionn

aire survey

Survey research is developed

within the positivist approach to

social science and produces

numerical results about the

beliefs, opinions, characteristics,

and past or present behaviour,

expectations, and knowledge of

respondents (Neuman, 2003). It is

usually associated with the

deductive approach, answering

who, what, where and how much

(many) (Saunders et al., 2009).

Effective when knowing exactly what

is required and how to measure the

variables

Allows collection of large amount of

data in an economical way

Fits in exploratory and descriptive

research

Allows easy comparison of

standardised data

Able to suggest possible reasons for

particular relationships between

variables

Interview

A purposeful discussion between

two or more people (Saunders et

al., 2009). It is a method of

eliciting a large quantity of fact,

knowledge and/or opinion from a

selected sample of respondents

(Kelly, 2005).

The interactive nature of the

procedure will provide “thicker” data

from individuals with different (and

convergent) perspectives on complex

system and assist understanding of

stakeholders’ coordinative

mechanisms between one another.


Case

Study

A form of qualitative analysis

wherein careful and complete

observation of an individual, a

situation or an institution is done,

generalisations and inferences are

drawn (Kothari, 2005). It is a

representative sample of instances

to obtain data for analysis to prove

a theory (Kelly, 2005).

Provide a more complete

understanding of a complex situation,

identify unintended consequences,

and examine the process of strategy

implementation, which is useful for

future policy choices” (McMillan &

Schumacher, 1997).

Answer “how” and “why” questions

Suitable when the boundaries are

not clear between the phenomenon

and context (Yin, 2003).

Similarly, dimension B aims to achieve an understanding in a multi-stakeholder

context to seek alternate ways to balance individual needs and solve conflicts

(complex system No. 2). While a comparative analysis of the survey is ideal for

unveiling the preliminary value gaps and common ground data among various

stakeholders, it might need the qualitative interview to straighten the supply chain

patterns where data on stakeholder roles, conflicts and collaborations is still scarce.

The quantitative survey and qualitative interview complement each other and

aid interpretation for developing the framework. The use of these two research

methods ensures that as the research gradually drills down into each dimension of

mutual benefit, different aspects of these dimensions can be inclusively examined

and dovetailed.

The framework testing phase aims to test the applicability of the mutual-benefit

framework with transformational housing projects in Australia. Specifically, it first

tries to find out how applicable the mutual benefit model is in the real-life housing

industry. It also attempts to explain why certain principles of accessing mutual

benefits could be included and others not, and the related solutions. Then, through

the lessons learned, a multi-dimensional strategy that incorporates mutual benefits

into the housing development processes will be finalised. A case study is appropriate

in answering the above “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 2009).


The case study was also chosen because the mutual-benefit framework at the

industry and stakeholder organisation level could not be considered without the

context, which is the sustainable housing project, and more specifically the mutual

collaborative activities and the related benefit flow in a project. It would have been

impossible for the researcher to have a true picture of stakeholder mutual benefits

without considering the context within which it occurred. The testing process and

recommended strategies resonate with stage 2 and stage 3 of Woodhead et al.’s

strategy.

3.4.3 Research Process

Research instruments were consequently designed to apply the research

methods for intended data, and analysis techniques were chosen to make sense of the

collected data. These methods, instruments and techniques were systemised into a

three-phase research process. It includes three phases: establishing the conceptual

framework, framework development, and framework finalisation. Figure 3.2 shows

the three phases and outlines how the instruments and techniques work together to

achieve the research objectives.

3.4.3.1 Establishing the Conceptual Framework

Phase 1 “establishing the conceptual framework” commenced with an

exploration of sustainability concepts and sustainable housing development in

Australia. It then proposed the research problem which is the lack of identified

mutual benefits among key stakeholders from engaging in sustainable housing

projects. The examination of the contemporary literature on achieving mutual

benefits then began and continued throughout the research to provide information

about critical influence factors, tangible and intangible benefits, housing supply

chain collaborations and existing strategies, which help ascertain the research

proposition.

In addition, the literature also helps identify: (1) preliminary formulation of the

research design; and (2) the search for projects that would be examined in depth. A

two dimensional conceptual framework was finally developed as a reference for the

subsequent data collection and analysis.


3.4.3.2 Framework Development

Phase 2 “framework development” embarks on systematic thinking of both

sustainable value and the supply chain through a survey and a semi-structured

interview.


Figure 3.2. The research process

Ph

ase 2 F

ramew

ork D

evelopm

ent

Background Problem Unclear mutual benefits

Research Proposition and Objectives

Institutional Research Collaborative planning Supply chain management

Economic Research Economic theories TBL benefits

Ph

ase 1 E

stablish

ing the C

oncep

tual

Fram

ework

Conceptual

Quantitatively identify - CAB prioritisation - CAB interrelationship Using statistical analysis

Stakeholder value gaps on CABs Using statistical analysis

Stakeholder networks and influence Using social network analysis

Qualitatively triangulate, further and explain questionnaire findings Using content analysis

Qu

estionn

aire In

-dep

th In

terview

Objective 1: Examine CABs

Objective 3a: Identify CFAMBS and their mutual influence, and in turn develop a preliminary mutual-benefit framework

Using Interpretive Structural Modelling

Diverse stakeholder roles Using content analysis

Compare diverse stakeholder benefits and risks Using content analysis

Case S

tud

y

Examine the applicability of the framework

Explore strategies for successful implementation

Objective 3b: A finalised framework

Objective 2: Identify stakeholder diversity

Social Research Attitudinal factors Policy-making

Ph

ase 3 F

ramew

ork

Fin

alisation


These two methods complement each other to achieve Objective 1, “to

examine CABs in terms of the significance, current status and correlation”, and

Objective 2, “to identify the diversity of key stakeholders in understanding their

different roles, benefits and risk in sustainable housing development, and value gaps

of CABs”.

Statistical analysis and social network analysis were conducted to process the

survey data, while qualitative content analysis was conducted to deal with the

interview data. The end product of the questionnaire and interview study is a list of

critical factors of achieving mutual benefits (CFAMBS) from engaging sustainable

housing, and their random yet complex interrelationships. These blurred

interrelationships were transformed into structural and quantifiable mutual influences

with the aid of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). These synthesises findings

lead to the formulation of a mutual-benefit framework that is based on a structural

implementation of commonly agreed CFAMBS and a stakeholder collaborative

model.

3.4.3.3 Test of the Framework

Objective 3 “to identify CFAMBs and accordingly develop a systematic

mutual-benefit framework to guide stakeholder actions” is finally achieved through a

case study in the following framework finalisation stage. As we can see, the data

collection and analysis are very much an interrelated and interactive set of processes.

In other words, the analysis occurs during the collection of data, as well as after it,

and helps to shape the direction of data collection (Saunders et al. 2009).

3.4.4 Considerations of the Research Instruments, Data Analysis Procedures and Results

To avoid disrupting the logic flow in between various methods in a mixed-

method research, Evans and Gruba (2003) suggested that a detailed description of the

research instruments and data analysis procedures for each method should be

presented, right before the related results are obtained. Specifically, the description

of the research instruments for each method should include the choice of instrument

within the method (for example, the choice of a questionnaire as survey instrument),

the design of the instrument and rationale, the choice of respondents, interviewees or

case projects, the administration of the instrument and relevant data analysis


techniques. Therefore, this thesis presents these aspects at the front of the next four

chapters.

Results of the mix-method investigations should be processed and reported

following certain principles so the research data will be analysed to an appropriate

extent to draw conclusions. Evans and Gruba (2003) suggested a dictum that follows

the principle: “Data is not information, information is not knowledge, and knowledge

is not wisdom”.

Evans and Gruba further explained the difference and connections between

these four elements, as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Types of Results

Description Remark

Data Data is the outcome of the recording

of measurements or images.

Recorded using

research instruments

Should be presented in

appendices

Information When data is condensed and

displayed in a systematic way

(pattern) to make further sense, it

may become information.

Triggers thinking and

hypothesis on a

potential pattern

Normally displayed in

the form of tables or

figures

Knowledge

(finding)

If a hypothesis is tested and proved

via triangulation or other supportive

evidence, it steps out of the

information square into the

knowledge square.

Represents the points

neither the researcher

nor the reader knew

before the research was

carried out.

Should be presented at

the end of each


“Result” chapter

Wisdom

(outcome)

New theories distilled from a good

amount of knowledge.

Research outcomes

Should be kept to the

“Discussion” chapter

Based on the above argument, the following chapters of this research (Chapters

4, 5, 6, 7) present the research results with a sequence of information, knowledge and

wisdom. The relevant raw data is presented in the appendices.

3.5 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL)

Before empirical study can begin, a conceptual framework needs to be

established through upfront review to guide the data collection, organizing and

analysis. This two-dimensional conceptual framework was designed based on the

two-fold core principles of stakeholder mutual benefits derived from collaborative

theories: (1) establishing the “consensus” on the multi-dimensional factors of

sustainable housing development; (2) developing the “collaborative and

communicative” actions based on balanced stakeholder needs to convey the

consensus knowledge. It helps identify:

what are the general challenges for stakeholders to achieve the benefits of

engaging in housing sustainability;

who, according to statute and good practice, could be the key stakeholders

in the sustainable housing sector.

These questions respectively lay the foundation of the two complex systems of

sustainable housing as stated in Chapter 1: complexity of sustainable value and the

stakeholder diversity.

3.5.1 Identifying General CABs

The development of this protocol is not a straightforward process: attempting

to synthesise diverse literature at the industry, organisation and project levels

requires a deep and full analysis of theory, practice and existing sustainability

assessment methods. In particular, the identification of benefit-associated factors that

could truly reflect mutual benefits is intricate. This is because it is hard to identify


multi-dimensional benefits for a large spectrum of stakeholders. However, current

studies on the pull and push factors of implementing sustainability offers a vision to

generalise CABs.

In the business context, the benefits of innovations were traditionally referred

to in economic terms, because businesses strive to balance inputs and outputs to

maintain a profitable enterprise (Yates, 2001). In the particular context of this

research, benefit gains and losses represent the output and input while sustainable

housing features a spectrum of technical and design innovations. These benefit gains

and losses are caused by the new attributes of sustainable housing, which could be

extracted from drivers and barriers, or pull and push factors in implementing

sustainable housing. In other words, identifying the potential factors that influence

the benefit flow for any stakeholder could be translated into distilling the essential

pull and push factors of the transformation toward sustainable housing.

Based on the above rationale, this research identifies multiple pull or push

factors from global literatures related to sustainable development, as the initial CABs

for further evaluation. For example, Lowe and Oreszczyn (2008) argue that

insufficient interdisciplinary action among technology, economy and sociology

specialists fails to provide solid data over the lifetime of exemplar buildings.

Aggravating this situation is the stereotyped additional cost of sustainable features;

oftentimes underrated or ignored by policies (Vandevyvere & Neuckermans, 2005).

As a consequence, sustainable housing has experienced psychological ignorance by

stakeholders, which reflects the conservative nature of the housing construction

industry (Wilkinson & Reed, 2007). Van Bueren (2007) thus supports the

collaborative integration via clear leadership and partnership among stakeholders,

which aids long-term planning, early agenda-setting and integrated design of

sustainable housing.

These 33 preliminary factors are clustered under four categories: technical and

design challenges, economic challenges, socio-cultural challenges and institutional

challenges. The categorisation is based on Spangenberg’s (2002) sustainability prism

and the Blue Ocean Strategy’s (2009) execution hurdles as shown in Table 3.4.

These two approaches understand sustainability with four dimensions, respectively,

at the industry level and organisational level.


Table 3.4 A Comparison of Theoretical bases of Developing the Analytical protocol

Models of

understanding

sustainability

Dimensions

Analytical

protocol for this

research

Technical and

design

challenge

Economic

challenge

Socio-cultural

challenge

Institutional

challenge

Sustainability

prism

(Spangenberg,

2002)

Environmental

Imperative

Economic

Imperative

Social

Imperative

Institutional

Imperative

Execution hurdles

for organisations

(Blue Ocean

Strategy, 2009)

Resource

Hurdle

Motivated

Hurdle

Cognitive

Hurdle

Political

Hurdle

The factors were then cross-referenced with the literatures and verified by

experts within the Australia context. It is interesting to find that many Australian

researchers in the field have described or quoted the 33 factors, although different

terms are occasionally used to define similar issues. For example, on the political

level, case studies of exemplar projects in Australia indicate that housing

sustainability is more a of contextual process that needs political codes or guiding

principles, rather than a naturally transferrable process (Williamson et.al., 2010).

Flexibility and functional diversity should also be counted into the current guidance

and regulation to cater to Australia’s various climates (Blair et.al., 2004; Crabtree,

2006). On the technological aspect, lacking of an integrated building performance

approach to link sustainability with property value was highlighted as a significant

pull factor (Lorenz and Truck, 2006). However, most key issues were recognized in

the economic and social domain of sustainable housing development in Australia.

For instance, Arman et.al. (2009) suggested that the opportunity cost needs to be

covered with all forms of capital to make successful sustainability decisions. He also

pointed out two major challenges of the implementation of sustainability: the

competitive housing market and lack of knowledge. There was also research


indicating that the consumer comfort and other social needs were not well addressed

through current star-based regulation in Australia. Further research thus needs to be

expanded onto consumer understanding and behaviour (Alder & Jay, 2005; O’Leary,

2008; Fielding et.al., 2010). Technological unfamiliarity, lack of incentives from

regulations and markets and stakeholder reluctance were also identified as

interdependent factors, needing more institutional efforts to overcome social and

economic barriers (Crabtree, 2006; Fielding et.al., 2010).

Over course of the above examination, the initial 33 factors were narrowed

down to 19, which are the best adjusted to the local conditions of Australia housing

industry. Finally, five academia and industry experts validated the factors to ensure

that the contents spell out what the researcher means to express from a housing

industry point of view. This process also combined similar-natured terms and to

ensure consistency and clarity. The finalised CAB list with brief descriptions of each

challenge is shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.6 lists the key references for compiling the

CAB list.

3.5.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders in Sustainable Housing Development

While researchers have conceived a variety of stakeholder definitions, the

concept is generally defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected

by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984). This research

accordingly defines the stakeholders of sustainable housing as follows: Stakeholders

are groups or individuals who can affect or is affected by engaging in sustainable

housing projects.

The main phases of a built-environment project are conception, design,

documentation, construction, commissioning, use, refurbishment and demolition.

Differing industry stakeholders are active in each of these phases; each can have a

different impact on the adoption of sustainable housing. In the realm of sustainable

building domain, a few researchers have investigated the traits of key stakeholders in

sustainable housing development. Based on the refined typologies of collaborative

watershed groups by Moore and Koontz (2003), these key stakeholders can be

understood at the government, development and construction, and end user level.


Table 3.5 The CAB List

CABs Description and examples of the connotation

Technical and design challenge

T1. Inadequate or untested

sustainable technologies or

materials

A few high-end technologies and solutions still

require further R&D before they achieve

commercial success, such as geothermal and

hydrogen energy

T2. Lack of professional

education and training programs

for industry

Human capital from the supply and governance

side

T3. Lack of methodologies and

tools to consistently define and

measure sustainability

Represent rating tools of sustainable

performance and lies in the heart of mandates

due to its close relation to cost-benefit data

T4. Lack of integrated design for

life-cycle management

A systematic model to integrate other alternative

sustainable technologies, such as nuclear, wind

and solar power, with consideration of the

interactions in between

T5. Insufficient cost-benefit data

from interdisciplinary research

Lack of interdisciplinary action among

technology, economy and sociology specialists

fails to provide solid data over the life time of

exemplar buildings

Economic challenge

E1. Unclear benefits from future

legislation, policy and market

change

Investment risk from pending legislations, such

as increasing energy price and carbon tax, as

well as expected market value fluctuation

E2. High investment cost The stereotyped additional cost on sustainable

features; oftentimes underrated or ignored by

policies

E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal

or other investment advantages

Reduced green land-use price, green mortgages

and funding, or other government subsidies, tax

and grants; non-fiscal advantages like favourable

access possibility land use

Socio-cultural challenge


S1. Reluctance to leave the

comfort zone and change

traditional practices

Psychological ignorance by stakeholders, which

reflected on the conservatism nature of housing

construction industry

S2. Insufficient reputation

increase, brand recognition and

competitive advantage

Pioneering motive of “being part of an industry

that values the environment”

S3. Lack of social conscience

regarding climate change and

natural resource preservation

(Corporate) social responsibility on carbon

emission, climate change, limited natural

resource

S4. Insufficient demand-side

education from media and other

channels

Provide awareness and motives for marketplace

S5. Contested functionality for

end users

A spectrum of end user concerns including

health and productivity, comfort, maintenance

ease and aesthetic values

Institutional challenge

I1. Lack of collaborative

integration

Clear leadership and partnership among

stakeholders will aid long-term planning, early

agenda-setting and integrated design of

sustainable housing

I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder

communication networks

A common-language platform to align

stakeholders’ knowledge, such as a knowledge

hub

I3. Inadequate policing of green

washing and unsustainable

practices

An inherent nature of top-down regime where

minimum qualification is allowed as opposed to

best practice; touch on the implementation

strictness of legislation and policy

I4. Slow and unwieldy

administrative processes in

certificating and policymaking

Increase time cost; make policy lag behind the

potential best practice

I5. Lack of comprehensive code or

policy package to guide action

regarding sustainability

A well-structured, multi-dimensional framework

that incorporates and systemises existing

instruments


I6. Duplication and confusion

arising from parallel

policies/legislation

Policy-making at different corporate or

administrative levels make it difficult for

individuals to determine unambiguously

Table 3.6 Literature Related to the Analytical Protocol

CAB code Key reference

Lor

enz

et a

l., 2

005

Hes

, 200

5

Van

devy

vere

& N

euck

erm

ans,

200

5

McG

raw

-Hil

l Con

stru

ctio

n &

US

G

reen

Bui

ldin

g C

ounc

ill,

2006

L

evit

t, 20

07

Say

ce, 2

007

Wil

liam

s &

Dai

r, 2

007

van

Bue

ren,

200

7

Ade

yeye

et a

l., 2

007

Lor

enz,

et a

l., 2

007

Wil

kins

on &

Ree

d, 2

007

Lut

zken

dorf

& L

oren

z, 2

007

Bro

wn

& S

outh

wor

th, 2

008

Low

e &

Ore

szcz

yn, 2

008

Shi

n et

al.,

200

8

Ryg

haug

& S

øren

sen,

200

9

Osm

ani &

O'R

eill

y, 2

009

Technical & Design

T1 X X X X X T2 X X X X X X X X X T3 X X X X X X X X X T4 X X X X X T5 X X X X X X X X X X Economic E1 X X X X X X X X X E2 X X X X X E3 X X X X X X X X X X Socio-cultural

S1 X X X X X S2 X X X X X S3 X X X X X X X S4 X X X X X X X X X S5 X X X X X X Institutional

I1 X X X X X X X X X X I2 X X X X X I3 X X I4 X X X X I5 X X X X X X X X X X I6 X X X X


Governmental level – This group of stakeholders is often involved in land use

planning and regulation. For many collaborative actions, government more than

often serves as a technical consultant, information provider, and funder of on-the-

ground actions (Robinson et al., 2011). The most frequently cited barrier for these

stakeholders is that sustainability objectives are often just not on their agendas.

Barriers related to knowledge of sustainable options, such as lack of information,

awareness, and expertise in sustainability issues, are experienced by this group. In

many instances, this group also lacks sufficient power to enforce sustainable options

because the regulations and strategies that they are required to enforce are not

stringent enough (Williams & Dair, 2007). In The Green Building SmartMarket

Report (McGraw-Hill Construction & US Green Building Council, 2006), the US

federal government was identified as having two primary functions in sustainable

building development: transforming the status quo through their purchasing power

and contracting abilities; and providing information through their relationships and

resources. The federal government ranks costs and energy savings as the most

important benefit to green building but their triggers for constructing green buildings

in order of importance were found to be lifecycle costs, energy reduction of costs and

usage, meeting agency mission and goals and executive order, legislative mandate,

and public policies.

Development and construction level – Stakeholders in this category are

significantly hindered by “comfort inertia”. They are believed to be influenced by

market demand when making decisions toward sustainability, and struggle with

“higher first cost” and “lack of education” as their greatest obstacles. For example,

residential developers have been slow to catch on to the trend, as they tend to look at

what sold yesterday when deciding what to build today. Homebuilders mostly use the

same means, methods and materials used 30 years ago, resulting in insufficient

consumer experience of new sustainable homes. This in turn becomes a key reason

why many builders do not perceive customers demanding anything different, leading

to a negative circle. Williams and Dair (2007) found that the stakeholders involved in

development and construction are also facing knowledge-related barriers. Here there

is a need for better comparative information on costs of sustainable construction

techniques and materials. They need an independent third party to provide green

building information and a green products standard.


Consumer level – Williams and Dair (2007) claimed that there is little evidence

of demand from the end user group because insufficient knowledge and information

is obstructing the sustainability movement. For the owner group, energy cost

increases and utility rebates are the largest barriers to their involvement in green

building. Following this is superior performance. An independent third party to

disseminate green building information and a green products standard were identified

as the most urgent need for this group as well (McGraw-Hill Construction & US

Green Building Council, 2006).

Despite the dozens of stakeholders playing indispensable roles in various

stages of housing development, Margerum (1997) argued that integrated approaches

cannot address all the concerns in a complex environment. Instead, key sectors

should be focused on to help achieve system goals and emphasize mutual

perspectives. Therefore, seven key stakeholders are recognised for their strong

linkage with the delivery process of sustainable housing. Table 3.7 lists the key

stakeholders and summarises the roles they play in sustainable housing development.

It is worth mentioning that consumers were originally selected as a key

stakeholder group for their direct representation of market demand. However,

considering the large amount of technical terms, policies and regulations involved in

the housing development process, consumers might have limited ability to provide

relevant feedback. Therefore, real estate agents and housing salespeople were

recruited as informants in order to portray market demand. In other words,

consumers’ needs, roles, benefits and potential strategies towards mutual benefits are

reflected by REA during data analysis. Consequently, while a separate “consumer”

category is presented to show related results in most cases throughout the thesis, this

category might not always present itself in the analysis involving direct stakeholder

feedback only. For example, during the analysis on stakeholder viewpoints on the

significance of CABs, consumers could not be directly represented by REA and

should do not be presented in corresponding analysis in Table 4.15 and 4.16.

Analysis on the influence power and willingness of implementing sustainability

among supply chain stakeholders also list the results on consumers in a slightly

different format compared to others (shown in Table 4.12 and Table 4.13). However,

these differences in format do not affect the rigor of the final framework

development.


Table 3.7 Key Stakeholders in Sustainable Housing Development

Stakeholders Roles

Government agencies

Direct housing and city development for community

good

Help formulate regulations and approval processes

Enhance public interest from media program and

education program

Developers

Balance the supply and demand side in housing market

Bringing housing to the real estate market and

overseeing all aspects of the management of the design

and construction process

Builders

Receiving direct influence from the end user

Hands-on experience of incorporating sustainable

features

Architects/Designers

Provide design and construction services

Incorporate innovative sustainable housing techniques

Other consultants

Orchestrate collaborative activities among key

stakeholders

Provide education for supply side

Financial institutions

Interest in investment in sustainable housing projects

for rewarding returns

Affect the sustainable housing features and limitations

through project budget

End-users & real

estate agents

Determine the market demand and in turn affect

industry motivation


3.6 SUMMARY

This chapter first clarified the research philosophy, research approaches and the

characteristic natures of the research based on the research proposition. This

methodological stance serves as a roadmap to guide the selection of methods,

findings and discussion. The chapter then examined available methods in the

literature and identified the research methods according to the methodological stance.

The research instruments and data analysis techniques were accordingly ascertained

and the rationale for the selection of the instruments and techniques was argued. The

chapter concluded with a justification of the expected research results, paving the

way for the presentation of the research findings in the following chapters.

Chapter 4: Survey Study 71

Chapter 4: Survey Study

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature review identified the gaps in understanding the challenges of

achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing development for diverse key

stakeholders. Given there is not such comparative research in exploring related issues

in Australian housing industry, this research employs a survey method to

quantitatively identify the significance and interrelationship of CABs. This builds the

platform for the following in-depth qualitative interview where reasons behind the

quantitative data are verified and solutions to the challenges of achieving benefits are

suggested. In addition, comparing various perceptions among key stakeholders will

provide preliminary facts about conflicting and agreeable needs in the supply chain.

This chapter first describes the survey instruments, design and data analysis

techniques. Section 4.3 in turn investigates the supply chain construct of sustainable

housing, significance and interrelationships of CABs using social network analysis

and descriptive analysis. Finally, Section 4.3 compares the similarities and

differences of CAB rankings among stakeholders using a series of nonparametric

tests.

4.2 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

As discussed in Section 3.4.5, it is appropriate to examine and report the

research instruments and data analysis procedures for each method right before the

related results are obtained. This approach appears to be particular important for mix-

method research to avoid disrupting the logic flow of each method. Therefore, this

chapter starts with the detailed description of the survey instruments design and

relevant data analysis techniques.

4.2.1 Survey Purpose

The quantitative survey was conducted to fulfil the following purposes:

Prioritise the CABs and examine their correlations

Investigate each stakeholders’ supply chain construct in sustainable

housing development and their prominence in decision-making

72 Chapter 4: Survey Study

Compare the different needs and wants among various stakeholders based

on the CAB value.

4.2.2 Selection of Survey Types

A survey can take a variety of formats such as: a questionnaire, where the

person answering the question records their own answer; structured observation,

which is mostly associated with organisational research; and structured interviews,

where researchers physically meet respondents and ask the questions. The survey of

this research investigates the significance and interrelationship of CABs based on

perceptions of seven key stakeholders. A questionnaire was chosen over other

formats for a number of reasons.

First, the nature of the survey is descriptive since it draws data from industry

perceptions, and it is explanatory because it requires respondents to evaluate the

significance and interrelationship of CABs. Saunders et al. (2009) pointed out that

questionnaires tend to be used for descriptive studies, where attitude and opinion are

involved, or explanatory research where relationships are examined. The former

enables researchers to investigate the variability in different phenomena, while the

latter generates particular cause-effect relationships. Additionally, a questionnaire is

appropriate for a large amount of standardised questions to be interpreted identically

by all respondents (Groat & Wang, 2002). This caters for the major task of the

survey where seven stakeholder groups evaluate the 19 CABs. Finally, the self-

administered nature of a questionnaire makes it economical, yet effective and

manageable compared with researcher-administrated techniques (Wilkinson &

Birmingham, 2003).

A self-administrated questionnaire could be completed in three forms, namely

internet-mediated questionnaire, postal questionnaire, and delivery and collection

questionnaire. The choice of the three forms depends on a few factors such as

expected response rate, sample characteristics, likelihood of distortion of answers,

question types, financial situation and time (Saunders et al., 2009).

In this research, the online questionnaire will be assigned to participants to

collect industry-wide perceptions on current sustainable housing practices, incentives

and obstacles. Compared with the other two formats, an online survey is convenient

and reduces the likelihood of distorted answers provided by the wrong person given


the high levels of computer literacy and the popularity of email correspondence in

workplaces in Australia. Additionally, the advancement of survey-designing software

can deal with complicated questions with a variety of templates and can facilitate the

survey administration by the tracking functions.

However, the online questionnaire has limitations such as non-representation

and low response rate (O'Leary, 2008). To address this particular issue, the

researcher used an online survey tool named “Qualtrics” for its power to create

customised surveys and manage the responses. Once the survey is designed, it allows

respondents to open and forward the URL link to access the survey questions. If a

respondent has partially finished the survey, progress can be saved and retrieved at a

later convenient time. Moreover, the tool helps save and categorise collected data

and automate data input for popular analysis software like SPSS, which further

reduces the time taken for both data collection and analysis.

4.2.3 Questionnaire Design

In addition, the questionnaire in this research was designed and administrated

with the web-based software Qualtrics due to its strength in designing sophisticated

questions. The questionnaire contains four sections, utilising a combination of

multiple choice questions, rating scales, and open-ended questions. The four sections

are: (1) Respondent details; (2) General opinions on sustainable housing; (3)

Significance of CABs; and (4) Further comments. It is considered important to get

the respondents’ profiles in section 1 since data reliability is related to the data

source and the identification of the position held by the person who completed the

questionnaire (Ahuja, 2007).

Section 2 deals with stakeholders’ key networks in the sustainable housing

development with Likert-scale and multiple choice questions. The respondents were

asked to name stakeholders they work with and to weigh their willingness and

influence in developing sustainable housing. Section 3 as the main part of this survey

requires the respondents to rate the significance of the CABs using a 5-point Likert-

scale from 1 representing “Not at all important” to 5 representing “Extremely

important”. Section 4 uses open text sections for respondents to accommodate

additional information and to capture informants’ views in regard to other salient

issues about sustainable housing adoptions that were not covered in the

questionnaire. A sample of the questionnaire survey is attached in Appendix A2.


4.2.4 Sampling Design and Respondent Profile

Research projects occur in the context of a researcher’s interest, expertise and

experience of human contacts and of the physical environment (Fellows & Liu,

2003). In spite of the best intentions and rigorous attempts, the impact on the

research results derived from circumstance and sample characteristics is inevitable.

For research questions where it would be impracticable to collect data from the entire

population, properly designed sampling techniques would be necessary in guarantee

the on-time delivery while maintaining the overall research accuracy (Saunders et al.,

2009). Therefore, careful selection of the sample characteristics is essential before

the empirical study could be carried out.

The target population is “all the members of a real or hypothetical set of

people, events, or objects to which researchers wish to generalize the results”

(Dillman, 2007). In this research, government agency officials, financial lenders,

developers, builders, architects/designers, other consultants and real estate agents

were chosen as the survey population. Although the probability sampling is the most

commonly associated with survey-based research strategies, this approach may either

not be impractical or inappropriate for achieving the particular study purposes

(Saunders et al., 2009). Since sustainable housing development is still in its infancy

in Australia, this study intends to provide an expert evaluation rather than a full-

fledged industrial viewpoint. Therefore, it centres specifically on 53 organisations

acknowledged as at the forefront of sustainability implementation across Australia.

This is a group who have made consistent efforts to engage sustainability as

identified by Housing Institute of Australia (HIA) and Australia Green Development

Forum (AGDF). Compared with others, these selected organisations have adequate

experience in sustainable housing and considerable understanding of the advantages

and disadvantages of sustainable development, and hence will be revealing to assess

the motives, preferences and inconveniences of their own from engaging in

sustainable housing developments. A focus on these pioneer organisations will

ensure a valid representation of the sustainability issues in the Australian housing

industry, which suits the ultimate objective of the research towards creating an

industry-guiding framework.


In comparison, another 27 reputed organisations without strong sustainability

focus were also randomly chosen across Australia, to reflect the general trends in

housing development. They were selected through professional associations such as

the Master Builders Australia. Such cross-referencing with the pioneer companies

ensures the representative feedback from the Australia Housing industry.

Individual respondents from the 80 organisations were selected from

information available on the internet and relevant seminar and forums according to

their position within the above organisations. Additionally, extra hard copies were

delivered in person to cover another two major stakeholder groups: financial

institutions and real estate agents due to the fact that these target groups are less

involved in decision-making and may not have the same level of enthusiasm.

The questionnaire survey was conducted from August to November 2010. All

the responses were collected and compiled into an initial report generated from

Qualtrics. Before sending out the full-scale questionnaires, six pilot surveys were

conducted in September 2010 with two builders, two university professionals and

two consultants for validity checking. These pilots aim to ensure that each question

could functionally measure what it sets out to measure. Respondents were asked to

make comments regarding the clarity, language, layout, format and effectiveness.

Amendments were made accordingly. Following the pilot study, survey invitations

were sent via email and in person to 163 respondents from the selected sampling

frame. Each respondent received the questionnaire link or hard copy with a cover

letter (refer to Appendix A1), the QUT Research Ethical Consent Form (refer to

Appendix C), and an opportunity to participate in a lucky draw. Four weeks were

given for the respondents to complete and return the questionnaire, and a follow-up

reminder were sent two weeks after the initial delivery.

Duron (2001) suggested three criteria to evaluate the non-probability sampling

processes: (a) a clear description of the sampling frame; (b) the sampling procedure;

and (c) the valid response rate. The first two aspects have been discussed above,

leaving the response rate for further examination. Attaining the highest possible

response rate is important to ensure the sample is representative of the target

population (Saunders et al., 2009). The validity of the questionnaire response was

measured by reference to two basic principles: (1) the survey questions are fully

answered; and (2) there are no obviously irrational answers (e.g. giving identical


ratings to a number of variables). Accordingly, 50 out of the 65 received responses

were considered valid, which amounts to a response rate of 30.7% given the totally

targeted number of 163. This figure conforms to the acceptable respondent rate of

approximately 30% for a survey focused on gaining responses from construction

industry practitioners (Akintoye, 2000; Love & Smith, 2003). Therefore, the

respondents are representative of the total population.

Table 4.1 gives the descriptive statistics for the type of organisations of

respondents. Out of the 50 respondents, 50% were from consultant organisations

including architects, designers and other consultants, with the remainder largely from

government (16%). The majority of the responses coming from consultants and

governments signalled the enthusiasm of these two groups regarding sustainability

issues. In contrast, the other four stakeholders showed less interest with each only

accounting for 10% or less of the responses.

Table 4.1 Sampling Distribution of Respondents by Professional Background

Respondent background Frequency Percentage

By “roles played by

organisations of

respondents”

RO1: Government agency 8 16%

RO2: Developer 4 8%

RO3: Builder 4 8%

RO4: Architect/Designer 10 20%

RO5: Other consultant 15 30%

RO6: Financial institution 4 8%

RO7: Real estate agency 5 10%

The respondents’ length of working experience in the housing industry is also a

defining index of their knowledge about housing development processes and thus the

reliability of the data. Figure 4.1 shows that the respondents’ lengths of working

experience are reasonably spread across the five groups in terms of this aspect.

Around 60% of the respondents have had at least 10 years working experience in the

industry, among which 36.17% indicated they have worked in the housing industry

for over 20 years. The high level of respondent seniority ensures a fruitful and

reliable source of data.


Figure 4.1. Sampling distribution of respondents by experience

Manager and director positions are held by 60.4% of the respondents. Feedback

from 36%, 16%, 20% and 8% of respondents were received from metropolitan areas

of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, respectively. The rest of the responses

were spread around other cities in Queensland. It is worth mentioning that a large

percentage of the respondents from Queensland belong to national or transnational

organisations with offices operating around Australia or the world. Given the overall

high executive level of the respondents, this geographical spread should provide an

Australia-wide view of sustainable housing development.

4.2.5 Data Analysis Techniques and Tools

Statistical analysis and social network analysis were conducted to make sense

of the questionnaire data. The following two sections elaborate the two methods in

detail.

4.2.5.1 Statistical Analysis

Statistical procedures are basically methods of handling quantitative

information so as to make that information meaningful. First, they enable researchers

to organise, summarise, and describe observations. In addition, statistical procedures

involve either identifying the characteristics of observed phenomenon or exploring

possible correlations among two or more phenomena (Ott & Longnecker, 2008).

Given the aim of the questionnaire and the complexity of survey variables, four


statistical methods are chosen to describe the stakeholders’ perceptions with the aid

of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 18.0 (SPSS18). Akintoye

(2000) and Yang (2009) have used these methods in nonparametric analysis, and

proved that these methods are able to deliver rigorous results.

Here the term “parameter” refers to a measure that describes the distribution of

the population such as the mean or variance. Parametric tests are based on the

assumption that we know certain characteristics of the population from which the

sample is drawn (Bryman & Cramer, 2009). This research does not fulfil the

parametric assumptions of normal distribution and homogeneity of variance,

therefore nonparametric testing was conducted. Purposes and outcomes of different

statistical analysis methods are summarised in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Methods of Statistical Analysis

Purpose Method Description Outcomes

Identify and

prioritise the

most important

CABs

Descriptive

statistics –

Frequencies

(Means and

standard

deviations) &

Social Network

Analysis

Mean scores define

importance. Standard

deviation measures the

diversity in

respondents’ feedback.

Respondent

profile

Social network

construct

The significance

of the CABs

Examine

interrelationships

of CABs

Correlation

(Spearman’s rho)

Describing the strength

of the relationship

between two variables

that are thought to be

associated without

implying that one is the

cause of the other.

The correlation

between different

CAB pairs

Correlation

(Kendall’s tau)

Describing the strength

and direction of the

relationship between

The correlation

between CABs and

respondents’


two variables that are

thought to be

associated without

implying that one is the

cause of the other.

characteristics

Compare the

different need

and wants

among various

stakeholders

reflected in the

CABs

Kendall’s W

(Kendall’s

coefficient of

concordance)

Measuring the

agreement of different

stakeholders on their

rankings (from 1 to 19)

of CABs

The differences in

perceptions on the

relative importance of

CAB rank among

stakeholders

Nonparametric

Test – 2-

independent

samples (Mann-

Whitney test)

Investigating the

difference between two

independent groups on

the scores (from 1 to 5)

of the CABs

The differences in

perceptions among

stakeholders on the

absolute importance

of each CAB

It is worth mentioning that this study involves several analyses of causal

relationships using the correlation coefficient. This type of approach is especially

useful for exploratory or other studies in settings where little is known. In order to

examine the relationship between two variables, there are three prominent methods:

Pearson’s r, Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau. Pearson’s r can be employed only

when the variables are interval and the relationships are linear. For variables at the

ordinal level, such as the Likert scale significance in this research, Kendall’s tau and

Spearman’s rho are available. Kendall’s tau and Spearman’s rho function the same

way, except the former usually produces a slightly smaller correlation. Although

Spearman’s rho is more commonly used in reports of research findings, Kendall’s tau

is preferred for a more believable result when dealing with a proportion of tied ranks

(Bryman & Cramer, 2009). Therefore, this research used Kendall’s tau to analyse the

relation between CAB scores and respondents’ characteristics, where the latter

involve a lot of tied value. On the other hand, this research adopted Spearman’s rho

to analyse the causal relationship between CABs because this process is based on

various CAB scores from 1 to 5 and few identical scores are involved.


Additionally, although the rho or tau could be used to describe the relationship

between each of the 19 possible pairs of CAB variables, neither could provide a

single measure that describes the overall relationship among all 19 variables

simultaneously using a single number for comparing stakeholders’ various

perceptions. Therefore, Kendall's coefficient of concordance was adopted. It is the

natural extension of Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau coefficients, which evaluates

the extent of agreement between two judges on the association among three or more

variables (Kendall, 1955).

Finally, considering the complexity of potential value gaps among the seven

key stakeholders, the Mann-Whitney test is adopted to triangulate the descriptive

analysis and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. This test is more powerful than

the median test because it compares the number of times a score from one of the

samples is ranked higher than a score from the other sample, rather than the number

of scores which are above the median (Bryman & Cramer, 2009). This is considered

useful for comparing differences on the absolute importance of CABs between two

independent samples (Pallant, 2005).

4.2.5.2 Social Network Analysis

Environmental applications of Social Network Analysis (SNA) emerged in the

last decade in order to understanding characteristics of social networks that increase

the likelihood of collective action (Tomkins and Adger, 2004; Newman and Dale,

2004; Bodin et al., 2006). It measures and maps the relationships and flows between

people, groups, organisations or other information or knowledge processing entities.

It involves actors and relations, and has been widely used in sociology, anthropology,

organisational behaviour and many other domains (Liebowitz, 2005).

This research expands this knowledge to preliminary understand the

prominence of seven stakeholders based on their network construct and influential

supply chain partners, which lays the foundation for the comparative study across

stakeholders. The concept of “degree centrality” to quantitatively analyse and

visualise stakeholders’ power based on their answers to Questions 8, 9 and 10. The

analysis was done by using the social network software Netminer, which takes each

stakeholder as a node. If a node has many connections, it may have a large centrality

score. As the length of a connection increases, the influence attenuates exponentially

(attenuation factor is 0.5 in this study). It should be noted that the connection


between nodes in the network represents the strength but not the direction. This type

of network is defined as a “1-mode network” in the Netminer software, and is a

required input for the centrality test. The output includes a set of in-status centrality

scores and out-status centrality scores, which could be mapped from the output

option in Netminer. The detailed analysis procedure is introduced in the results

section (CRYAM, 2009; Prell et at., 2009).

4.2.6 Reliability and Validity of the Survey Measures

A typical measurement procedure such as a questionnaire survey entails two

fundamental characteristics to minimize error: reliability and validity. The following

section presents the considerations on these two aspects in the current questionnaire

study.

4.2.6.1 Reliability

Reliability is defined as the stability or consistency of scores when the

measurement is repeated under identical conditions. There are three aspects of

reliability, namely: equivalence (alternate-form reliability), stability (test-retest

reliability) and internal consistency reliability (Allen & Yen, 1979). Equivalence is

measured through a parallel forms procedure (differently worded forms) to measure

the same attribute. However, parallel forms procedure is, in reality, very difficult if

not impossible. It is suggested that the inter-rater reliability should be preferred in an

attitude-involved survey. For example, the extent to which different stakeholders

agree on the rating of a certain CAB is a sign of equivalence. The current survey

used Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W) to examine whether all of the

respondents ranked the 19 CABs in a similar order, i.e. equivalence. A W value

equal to 1 means a high level of agreement on the CAB rank, whereas a W value

equal to 0 means a high level of divergence (Yeung et al., 2007). The W value for the

19 CAB rank from Table 4.4 to Table 4.7 in the follow Section 4.3.2 was 0.107,

which was statistically significant at 1% level and indicated a good equivalence

reliability.

Similarly, the degree to which a stakeholder’s rating would remain steady over

time is also an indication of reliability: test-rest reliability. However, this reliability

test would appear impractical for the investigation on high-profile stakeholders. The

last aspect of reliability, internal consistency, concerns the extent to which items on


the test are measuring the same thing. Gulliksen (1950) suggest increasing the

number of scales, such as Likert Scale used in the current questionnaire, or

developing a scale completely measuring the construct of interest are good methods

to safeguard internal consistency. The current questionnaire design does so by

including 5 well-considered scales for CAB significance and pilot study as

verification. The detail questionnaire design was presented in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.6.2 Validity

Validity is defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what it

purports to measure (Allen & Yen, 1979). An important point to understand is that a

measure can be perfectly reliable and yet not be valid, providing the attempt of the

measurement and what it actually measures leave each other.

Validity can be measured in four forms: face validity, content validity, criterion

validity and construct validity. Face validity is a component of content validity and is

established when an individual reviewing the instrument concludes that it measures

the characteristic or trait of interest; content validity pertains to the degree to which

the instrument fully assesses or measures the construct of interest; criterion-related

validity is assessed when one is interested in determining the relationship of scores

on a test to a specific criterion; construct validity is the degree to which an

instrument measures the trait or theoretical construct that it is intended to measure. In

the current research, content validity and face validity were considered as appropriate

elements to test the overall validity. They are firstly ensured by selecting and

developing the CABs from of extensive literature and having the CAB list and the

related Likert scales validated by five academia and industry practitioners. Moreover,

six pilot surveys were conducted with two builders, two university professionals and

two consultants to further enhance validity in terms of the clarity, language, layout,

format and effectiveness.

4.3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

4.3.1 General Views on Sustainable Housing Development

Different stakeholders may have diverse viewpoints pertaining to the

implementation of sustainable housing. Exploration of these various opinions is

conducive to exposing CABs and potential problems. Scale questions were asked in

order to learn different respondents’ levels of experiences and attitudes about


engaging in sustainable housing. Table 4.3 summarises respondents’ feedback on

three salient attributes of sustainable housing implementation.

4.3.1.1 Involvement

Table 4.3 shows that stakeholders in the Australian housing industry are

“often” (36%) rather than “sometimes” (28%) involved in sustainable housing

development.

Table 4.3 General Views on Sustainable Housing Implementation

Attribute Descriptio

n

Percentage of answers across stakeholders (%)

Gover

nment

Devel

oper

Buil

der

Arch

itect

Cons

ultant

Financial

lender

RE

A

Over

all

What is your

organisation's level

of involvement in

developing

sustainable housing

projects?

Never 0 0 33 0 0 25 33 6

Rarely 0 0 0 0 27 25 0 11

Sometimes 38 50 0 20 20 25 67 28

Often 63 25 33 60 27 0 0 36

Always 0 25 33 20 27 25 0 19

How do you

consider engaging

in sustainable

housing to your

organisation's

business?

A risk 0 25 0 0 7 0 20 6

An

Opportunit

y

13 25 0 20 7 75 40 21

Neither a

Risk nor an

Opportunit

y

88 50 100 80 87 25 40 73

Do stakeholders in

sustainable housing

projects depend on

each other more

than conventional

housing projects to

achieve their

Strongly

Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree 13 25 0 0 0 0 20 6

Neutral 25 25 33 30 20 25 40 27

Agree 50 50 33 60 27 75 40 44

Strongly

Agree 13 0 33 10 53 0 0 23


individual goals?

Nineteen per cent of the respondents claimed that they always work on

sustainable housing, and only 6% of practitioners indicated a zero involvement.

Specifically, around two-thirds of government officials, builders and consultants are

deemed as early adopters, being “often” or “sometimes” engaged in sustainable

housing projects. On the other hand, a greater spread is seen among financial

institutions and real estate agencies regarding how often they deal with sustainable

housing cases. This most probably has to do with their downstream position in the

housing industry supply chain and the abundant business they get from non-

sustainable products.

4.3.1.2 Risk or Opportunity

Among the respondents, 73% consider sustainable housing as a potential

opportunity for their organisation’s business development, which implies the great

mental readiness of the Australian housing industry. Governments, builders,

architects and consultants are ready to use sustainability to their advantage,

respectively, with 80%, 100%, 80% and 87% precent of which consider sustainable

housing as an opportunity. The remaining stakeholders resist this change, even

though most of them do not see it as a risk.

4.3.1.3 Attitude towards Collaborations

Sustainable housing is characterised for its benefit asymmetry in terms of time

and space, thus considered as needing more sophisticated collaboration across

stakeholders. This viewpoint was reinforced through a question asking if

stakeholders depend on each other more in a sustainable housing project than in a

conventional project. 77% of the stakeholders agreed that sustainable housing needs

stronger collaborations. More than 60% of respondents among the government

agency staff, builders, financial institutions and different consultants “agree” or

“strongly agree” on this point. Consultants showed the most enthusiasm for

collaboration, with 53% advocating a stronger partnership with others in sustainable

housing projects. However, the opposite voice was heard regarding more intensive

partnership from 13% of government agency staff, 25% of developers and 20% of

real estate agents. Likewise, 60% of consumers chose “Disagree” or “Neutral” when

they made their choices. These stakeholders are spread across the two ends of the


supply chain. This indicates that the industry practitioners in the middle-stream

supply chain often encounter conflicts during the housing delivery process, and

therefore consider collaboration as an essential element for successful

implementation of sustainable practices.

4.3.2 CAB Rankings

This section focuses on the ranking of the challenges of achieving the benefits

from engaging in sustainable housing. The average mean score and standard

deviation (SD) were calculated for each CAB to establish its level of significance and

spread dispersion. Table 4.4, Table 4.5, Table 4.6, and Table 4.7, respectively, show

the results regarding the economic, institutional, technical and design, and socio-

cultural challenges. The mean values of the 19 CABs range from 3.35 to 4.12, which

indicates a discrepancy in significance among various CABs. Modest values of

standard deviation (0.73 to 1.21) suggest an insignificant diversity in the

respondents’ ratings. However, it is interesting to find that the low ranked challenges

tend to have high SD, which signifies a large range of value-spread. The five

challenges with the highest SD shared an average rank of 15th, all falling into the

technical and design, and socio-cultural categories. This indicates the responses

about these two categories from the questionnaire are relatively controversial and

require further verification via the interview study.

4.3.2.1 Economic Challenges

Among the four micro categories of CABs, stakeholders believed economic

challenges affect their benefits the most (mean value=4.08). This finding is in line

with several research findings (Lowe & Oreszczyn, 2008; McGraw-Hill Construction

& US Green Building Council, 2006; Osmani & O'Reilly, 2009; Vandevyvere &

Neuckermans, 2005). “High investment cost” (E2) (mean value = 4.12) is the most

significant CAB identified among all. Closely following E2 are another two

economic challenges: “Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market

change” (E1) and “Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment incentives”

(E3), with an importance value of 4.08 and 4.06, respectively. This reveals that the

housing industry in Australia currently values economic return over all other forms

of softer or hard-to-quantify benefits.


Table 4.4 Ranking of the Economic Challenges

Economic challenge Mean Std.

Dev.

Overall

rank

4.08

E2. High investment cost 4.12 0.86 1

E1. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and

market change (e.g. increasing energy price and carbon

tax)

4.08 0.93 2

E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment

incentives (e.g. green land-use price and access

possibility, green mortgages and funding, or other

government subsidies)

4.06 0.82 3=

Notes: Number = 50. For “mean scores”: “1” = least important and “5” = most important.

4.3.2.2 Institutional Challenges

An overall second rank (mean value=3.84) of institutional challenges

confirmed that it is imperative that the current industry pursues better policymaking

and intensive collaborative structure. “Lack of comprehensive code or policy

package to guide action regarding sustainability” (I5) (mean value = 4.06) was

equally ranked the third most significant with a small standard deviation (0.83),

which signified a collective need for a consistent mechanism to systemise available

instruments for sustainability, rather than a one-sided energy efficiency mandate.

Next down the list in this category is “Inadequate policing of green washing and

unsustainable practices” (I3) (mean value = 4.02). “Lack of collaborative

integration” (I1) was ranked 10th with the smallest SD (0.73) among the 19 CABs.

Further inter-stakeholder collaboration appeared to be a commonly agreed core

element for maximising mutual benefits. It is however interesting to find that “Lack

of inter-stakeholder communication networks” (I2) was only ranked 16th. This

probably indicated that communicating information and knowledge would remain

secondary for stakeholders before beneficial information and knowledge are well


established. In fact, stakeholders will take the initiative to look for communications

once they realise it could enhance the opportunities to expand their business or make

extra profits.

Table 4.5 Ranking of the Institutional Challenges

Institutional challenge Mean Std.

Dev.

Overall

rank

3.84

I5. Lack of comprehensive code or policy package to guide

action regarding sustainability 4.06 0.83 3=

I3. Inadequate policing of green washing and unsustainable

practices 4.02 0.85 5=

I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in

certificating and policymaking 3.84 1.01 8=

I1. Lack of collaborative integration (e.g. clear leadership

and roles among stakeholders) 3.82 0.73 10=

I6. Duplication and confusion arising from parallel

policies/legislation 3.78 0.96 12

I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks (e.g.

a central knowledge hub) 3.55 0.87 16


4.3.2.3 Technical and Design Challenges

The questionnaire revealed that the housing industry actors generally believe

that sustainable technologies and design are economically viable and do not

jeopardise stakeholder benefit largely. Overall, the top 10 priorities were firstly given

to “Lack of integrated design and life-cycle management” (T4) (mean value=4.02,

ranked 5th) and “Insufficient research to demonstrate the cost-benefit data” (T5)

(mean value=3.90, ranked 7th), both highlighting the life-cycle thinking of the

industry. Another challenge in the top10 is “Lack of professional education and

training programs” (T2) which signifies that the industry values systematic and

scientific education over random dissemination from media. “Lack of methodologies


and tools to consistently define and measure sustainability” (T3) was only ranked

13th with a mean score of 3.61. Indeed, the Australian housing industry does not lack

rating tools. Nationwide, the Green Star, National Australian Built Environment

Rating System (NABERS), FirstRate, and AccuRate tools are being adopted in

different projects. “Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials”

(T1) scored only 3.35 and was ranked the least significant challenge among all. It

seems respondents commonly acknowledged that the current sustainable

technologies and materials are advanced enough to deliver sustainable housing.

Table 4.6 Ranking of the Technical and Design Challenges

Technical and design challenges Mean Std.

Dev.

Overa

ll

rank

3.74

T4. Lack of integrated design and life-cycle management 4.02 0.95 5=

T5. Insufficient interdisciplinary research to demonstrate the

cost-benefit data 3.90 0.98

7

T2. Lack of professional education and training programs 3.82 1.17 10=

T3. Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently define

and measure sustainability 3.61 0.95 13

T1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or

materials 3.35 1.11 19


4.3.2.4 Socio-cultural Challenges

While much research has been switching focus from technical barriers to

cultural obstructions in recent years, the results of this questionnaire indicate that the

Australian housing industry does not consider the latter to be of great hindrance to

stakeholders’ benefits (mean value=3.58, ranked fourth among 4). “Lack of social

conscience in climate change and natural resource preservation” (S3), “Contested

functionality for consumers” (S5) and “Insufficient reputation increase, brand

recognition and competitive advantage” (S2) were all ranked in the bottom five with


a mean value of 3.57, 3.53 and 3.37, respectively. This would indicate the attitudinal

readiness and the lofty environmental awareness of government officials, industry

practitioners and consumers. “Insufficient media promotion of scientific advantages

from sustainable housing” (S4) also only received a mean score of 3.59, coming 14th

on the list. With the ICT industry moving into maturity, it seems that it is the

overload of sustainability-related information, rather than insufficiency, which keeps

stakeholders from making the quick yet smart decisions. “Reluctance to leave the

comfort zone and change traditional practices” (S1) takes the only top 10 position in

the ranking among the five socio-cultural challenges, with a mean value of 3.84.

These unexpectedly lower rankings of socio-cultural CABs indicate the reshaped

awareness and willingness of industry practitioners, for which credit may be due to

the strong regulations in the energy-efficiency domain. The incremental change made

from the stringency of 3.5 stars to the current 6-star standard has been a great aid as a

marketing tool for both the housing industry and the public.

Table 4.7 Ranking of the Socio-cultural Challenges

Socio-cultural challenge Mean Std.

Dev.

Overall

rank

3.58

S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change

traditional practices 3.84 0.99 8=

S4. Insufficient media promotion of scientific advantages

from sustainable housing 3.59 1.19 14

S3. Lack of social conscience regarding climate change and

natural resource preservation 3.57 1.21 15

S5. Contested functionality for consumers (e.g. health,

comfort, maintenance ease) 3.53 1.14 17

S2. Insufficient reputation increase, brand recognition and

competitive advantage 3.37 0.95 18



4.3.2.5 Main Findings of CAB Rankings

As reported above, respondents ranked the significance of the economic,

institutional, technical and design, and socio-cultural challenges. Table 4.8 extracts

and highlights the main findings.

Table 4.8 Main Findings of CAB Rankings

Investigated

subjects Remarks

1. Economic

challenge

Quantifiable economic returns remain the top factor that

affect stakeholder benefits from engaging in sustainable

housing

2. Institutional

challenge

Weighed over technical and design challenges and social

challenges

A comprehensive code with systemised policies to guide

action is highly needed

Collaborative activities to maximise mutual benefits should

be acted upon before stakeholders can communicate the

benefits and information

3. Technical and

design

challenge

Current technologies and designs are economically viable to

meet regulations

Life-cycle integrated design and cost-benefit data are called

for to make breakthroughs in mainstreaming sustainable

housing

4. Socio-cultural

challenge

By and large, socio-cultural challenges are the least

significant challenges for sustainable housing development in

Australia

Information coverage, social conscience, brand enhancement

and consumer functionality of engaging sustainable practices


seem to have been well established

4.3.3 CAB Correlation

4.3.3.1 Correlation among CABs

Correlations across the 19 CABs were calculated using Spearman’s rho in

order to describe the strength of the relationship between pairs of challenges. The

results are shown in Table 4.9. An absolute majority of the 171 correlations appears

to be positive. Only three pairs of CABs were found with negative correlations

ranging from -0.004 to -0.144, none of which indicated a significant association.

Among the remaining 168 positive linkages, a minority (73, or 43%) were indicated

with significance at 0.01 or 0.05 levels.

Specifically, we can see intensive interrelationships within the five technical

and design challenges, among which 90% of the pairs bear a significance correlation.

Technical and design challenges were also shown as greatly correlating with

economic challenges, which suggests the fundamental roles played by the former in

helping achieve the financial returns of sustainable housing in the long run.

Additionally, 80% of the correlations among socio-cultural CABs were significant.

This seems to imply that the various cultural factors tend to change in the same

direction and at a similar pace. For example, the improvement of environmental

awareness will help achieve a competitive edge for businesses with a strong

sustainability focus. It is worth mentioning that within this group, “Consumer

functionality” (S5) significantly relates to all the economic CABs. This signals that

consumers, being the ultimate payers, only tend to pay extra for what they believe

can bring excellent comfort, health and living environment. With the lack of

confidence among consumers regarding what they pay for, the supply side will

hesitate in their decision-making towards sustainable housing. The economic benefits

will be significantly hindered. A believable and consumer-friendly cost-benefit

database is again urgently called for to this end.

Finally, challenges regarding policymaking: “Lack of methodologies and tools

to consistently define and measure sustainability” (T3), “Slow and unwieldy

administrative processes in certificating and policymaking” (I4), “Lack of

comprehensive code or policy package to guide action regarding sustainability” (I5),


and “Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/legislation” (I6) were

found to have significant bonding between them. This might signal that a

comprehensive political package for sustainable housing development should not

only encompass rating tools but also implementation strictness and consistent

administration structures.


Table 4.9 Correlations of CABs

CABs T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 E1 E2 E3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 T1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials

1 .273 .374 **

.376 **

.403 **

.453 **

.219 .334 *

.086 .418 **

.288 *

.213 .156 -.010

.052 .020 .290 *

.345 *

.182

T2. Lack of professional education and training programs for industry

1 .522 **

.542 **

.512 **

.170 .067 .147 .238 .094 .211 .266 .202 .368 **

.159 .103 .162 .295 *

.395 **

T3. Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently define and measure sustainability

1 .517 **

.338 *

.317 *

.401 **

.578 **

.072 .287 *

.169 .132 .304 *

.334 *

.093 .005 .391 **

.702 **

.338 *

T4. Lack of integrated design for life-cycle management

1 .443 **

.416 **

.214 .259 .106 .163 - .004

.148 .241 .354 *

.322 *

.113 .190 .307 *

.372 **

T5. Insufficient cost-benefit data from interdisciplinary research

1 .319 *

.190 .037 .086 .300 *

.259 .312 *

.343 *

.292 *

.280 .194 .089 .288 *

.311 *

E1. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change

1 .441 **

.512 **

.073 .271 .125 .280 .283 *

.223 .300 *

.075 .230 .162 .435 **

E2. High investment cost 1 .569 **

.212 .289 *

.226 .111 .304 *

.069 .147 - .144

.070 .200 .134

E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment advantages

1 .052 .284 *

.133 .104 .290 *

.150 .170 .039 .332 *

.415 **

.355 *

S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change traditional practices

1 .280 .388 **

.407 **

.114 .187 .040 .025 .027 .152 .101

S2. Insufficient reputation increase, brand recognition and competitive advantage

1 .616 **

.524 **

.385 **

.108 .160 - .112

.302 *

.387 **

.307 *

S3. Lack of social conscience regarding climate change and natural resource preservation

1 .629 **

.335 *

.097 .170 .140 .240 .254 .278

S4. Insufficient demand-side education from media and other channels

1 .302 *

.274 .341 *

.203 .210 .097 .320 *

S5. Contested functionality for consumers 1 .396 **

.222 .006 .178 .101 .331 *

I1. Lack of collaborative integration 1 .364 *

.120 .298 *

.318 *

.276

I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks

1 .455 **

.413 **

.131 .531 **

I3. Inadequate policing of green washing and unsustainable practices

1 .219 .011 .313 *

I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certificating and policymaking

1 .533 **

.555 **

I5. Lack of comprehensive code or policy package to guide action regarding sustainability

1 .310 *

I6. Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/legislation

1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)


Although the above results of bivariate correlation between CABs do not imply

explicitly that one is the cause of the other, it facilitates the qualitative content

analysis on CAB interrelationship and helps identify critical factors of achieving

mutual benefits in the next stage. Therefore, the correlations generated from

Spearman’s rho test will be further discussed to triangulate qualitative findings in

Chapter 6, in order to identify cause and effect interrelationships among CABs.

4.3.3.2 Correlation between CABs and Respondent Profile

Correlations between CABs and respondent profile were analysed using

Kendall’s tau correlation. The value of Kendall’s tau correlation (t) ranges from -

1.00 to 1.00, representing a purely negative correlation to a perfect positive

correlation. In order to make sense of the nominal data in this test, values (1-5) were

assigned to respondents’ characteristics such as “length of working experience”,

“level of involvement in sustainable housing”, “attitude towards sustainable housing

(a risk or an opportunity)” and “attitude towards sophisticated collaborations”. The

sequence of values was generally designed to have positive correlation with

respondents’ characteristics. For example, respondents with different frequency of

involvement in sustainable housing projects from “Never” to “Always” were

assigned a value from “1” to “5”. Table 4.10 shows the related results.

Pallant (2001) states that the correlation coefficient of 0.34 or above is

considered a reasonable variance to define research phenomena in the social

sciences. Since all the values of coefficients of determination reported in Table 4.10

are less than 0.34, the correlations between CABs and respondent characteristics are

not particularly strong in general. However, patterns existing between the four micro

CAB categories and respondent traits could still lead to some preliminary

interpretations.

Specifically, although no strong correlations appeared, largely negative

correlations exist between “length of working experience” and technical, economic

and social CABs. The same could not be said about institutional factors, which

signifies that stakeholders with longer industry work experiences tend to highlight

institutional challenges while encountering less difficulty in other categories in

sustainable housing implementation.


Table 4.10 Kendall’s tau Correlations (t) Between the CABs and Respondents’

Characteristics

CABs

Length of

working

experienc

e

Level of

involvemen

t

Risk or

opportuni

ty

Attitude

on

collaborati

ons

T1. Inadequate or untested

sustainable technologies or

materials

-.082 -.229 .119 .088

T2. Lack of professional

education and training

programs for industry

-.154 -.074 .060 .136

T3. Lack of methodologies and

tools to consistently define and

measure sustainability

.070 -.050 .015 .132

T4. Lack of integrated design

for life-cycle management -.084 .093 .192 .271*

T5. Insufficient cost-benefit

data from interdisciplinary

research

-.127 -.058 .118 .121

E1. Unclear benefits from

future legislation, policy and

market change

-.011 .027 -.106 .175

E2. High investment cost -.095 -.004 .035 .009

E3. Inadequate or inefficient

fiscal or other investment

advantages

.011 -.077 .049 .093

S1. Reluctance to leave the

comfort zone and change


-.028 .164 .191 .258*

S2. Insufficient reputation

increase, brand recognition

and competitive advantage

-.026 0.03 .025 .185


S3. Lack of social conscience

regarding climate change and

natural resource preservation

-.009 .114 -.042 .142

S4. Insufficient demand-side

education from media and

other channels

-.041 .063 .044 .281*

S5. Contested functionality for

consumers .117 .267* -.121 .115

I1. Lack of collaborative

integration -.051 .103 .155 .199

I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder

communication networks .019 -.006 -.147 .224

I3. Inadequate policing of

green washing and

unsustainable practices

.169 .020 -.024 .127

I4. Slow and unwieldy

administrative processes in

certificating and policymaking

-.106 -.101 -.142 .052

I5. Lack of comprehensive

code or policy package to

guide action regarding

sustainability

.063 -.167 -.010 .186

I6. Duplication and confusion

arising from parallel

policies/legislation

.069 .101 -.154 .271*

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Interestingly, respondents’ length of work experiences does not speak for the

“level of involvement in sustainable housing”. Correlation t values (varied between -

0.229 to 0.267) were positive, which indicates a blurry connection. This result seems

justifiable considering housing sustainability was only brought into legislation since

2003 in the form of energy efficiency regulations, when other sustainable practices

started to bloom. However, the research found in general that the more involvement

in sustainable housing, the more socio-cultural challenges are foreseen. In particular,


“Contested functionality for consumers (e.g. health, comfort, ease of maintenance)”

(S5) has a relatively strong positive correlation of 0.267. Such a result seems to

imply that measurable indicators are needed to justify consumers’ tangible benefits

from sustainable housing, despite the viability of current design and technology. In

fact, recent Australian research on green building functionality revealed that

occupants do not feel more comfortable when living in buildings with sustainable

solutions (Paul & Taylor, 2008).

In the case of “attitude towards sustainable housing”, positive correlations were

found to exist with technical and economic challenges, as opposed to the clear

negative with institutional factors. This could indicate that stakeholders with an

optimistic view towards sustainable housing tend to downplay the role of

institutional challenges. Rather, they seemed to concentrate their efforts on solving

technical and economic issues.

All the correlations between CABs and “attitude towards sophisticated

collaborations” appeared to be positive. This suggested that the current lack of well-

organised collaboration has already created a comprehensive obstruction for

sustainable housing implementation. Only through better orchestration among all the

key stakeholders in the housing industry can sustainable housing experience a

brighter future. This finding aligns with the propositions of those advocating an

institutional change and environmental collaboration to deal with the fragmented

nature of the industry, and the broad connotation of sustainability (Birkeland, 2002;

van Bueren, 2007). Considering the significance level, “Lack of integrated design

and life-cycle management” (T4), “Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change

traditional practices” (S1), “Insufficient media promotion of scientific advantages

from sustainable housing” (S4) and “Duplication and confusion arising from parallel

policies/legislation” (I6) show a comparatively strong positive correlation. This

means that these four factors could potentially be the stepping-stone for better

collaboration.

4.3.4 Stakeholder Network, Influence Level and Willingness

4.3.4.1 Immediate Network Construct

Before the comparative research regarding stakeholders’ perceptions of

challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable housing development, it is


necessary to examine stakeholders’ immediate networks as the context in which

benefit reallocation might occur. To this end, each respondent was asked to name the

stakeholders they closely work with or deal with in sustainable housing projects. Key

statistics used for data analysis is the percentage distribution. For example, if at least

half of the responses from the stakeholder A group claim that they need to work with

stakeholder B in a sustainable housing project, then A and B are deemed to be in an

immediate network. The results are shown in Table 4.11. Government agency staff,

developers, builders, other consultants and consumers are involved regularly in

housing development and should be deemed as controlling stakeholders. Specifically,

the majority of the respondents from government agencies specified that they work

with developers, builders and architects on a regular basis. Noticeably, developers

unanimously reported a working relationship with builders. The same is seen

between builders and government agency staff. On the contrary, financial institution

staff and real estate agents work in a simpler network construct, which echoes their

more remote connection with housing sustainability. For instance, the former

connects with only government agency staff, developers and consumers. It should be

noted that despite the limited number of stakeholders they work with, that

relationship could be critical in the whole development process.

Table 4.11 Distribution of Stakeholder Networks in Sustainable Housing

Stakeholder Government

agency

Financial

institution

Deve-

loper Builder

Arch-

itect

Other

consultants

Real

estate

agency

Cons-

umer

1 Government

agency X X X X X X X

2 Financial

institution X X X X

3 Developer X X X X X X X

4 Builder X X X X X X

5 Architect X X X X X

6 Other

consultant X X X X X

7 Real estate

agency X X X X

8 Consumer X X X X X X X


4.3.4.2 Stakeholders’ Influence Level of Decision-making towards Sustainable Practices

Respondents were asked to indicate which stakeholders have the most

influence on their decision-making towards sustainable housing adoption. Table 4.12

provides a summary of the feedback. A cut-off criterion was set to define an

influential partner, namely, stakeholders receiving half the votes or above. The

results indicate that each stakeholder could be from one up to four other influential

stakeholders. Government agency staff and developers are the top two stakeholder

groups influencing the overall industry, with eight and six stakeholders out of nine

voting for them, respectively. It is interesting to see both of these two groups include

themselves in the decision-making “board”. Builders, architects and consumers are

also believed to be playing a role in influencing other stakeholders’ decisions about

adopting sustainable features.

Table 4.12 Stakeholder Influence Level of Decision-making

Stakeholder Government

agency

Financial

institution

Deve-

loper

Bui-

lder

Arch-

itect

Other

consultants

Real

estate

agency

Con-

sumer

Out-

status

centrality

1 Government

agency X X 2.121

2 Financial

institution X 0.816

3 Developer X X X X 1.002

4 Builder X X X 0.372

5 Architect X X 1.545

6 Real estate

agency X X 0.126

7 Other

consultants X X 0.352

In-status

centrality 1.293 0.266 1.318 1.229 1.018 0.954 0.291 1.145

Specifically, government agencies consider themselves together with architects

as the determining stakeholders in adopting sustainability. However, architects

nominated builders and consumers as the groups mainly influencing their decision-


making, which defines their unique role in practically linking the design and

construction processes. Developers, on the other hand, think most of their network

partners affect the choice, including consumers, government agency staff and other

consultants, along with themselves. This reflects their roles in connecting with a

range of stakeholders and meeting their needs in the development of housing.

Builders were the only stakeholder group whose decisions are affected by real estate

agencies, although government agencies and developers are also high on their list.

This signals an imperative to provide better marketing and information to consumers.

Financial institutions and real estate agencies seem to be following the government

policies when they encounter the opportunity for sustainable change.

To estimate the degree of prominence of stakeholders in a quantitative manner,

the status centrality concept was used to consider every connection between

stakeholders (Cyram, 2009). The status centrality scores generated from Netminer

for each stakeholder are shown above in Table 4.12. The out-status centrality

indicates the extent to which a stakeholder is affected by others; whereas, in-status

centrality indicates the extent to which a stakeholder can affect others (Katz, 1953).

In other words, the higher the in-status centrality values, the greater the power of

influence one stakeholder has on decision-making about sustainability. Netminer

generated a spring network map and a concentric influence circle, shown in Figure

4.2, to visualise the stakeholder relationship and power of influence. As can be seen

in Figure 4.2, the nodes of developers, government agencies and builders appear to

be bigger, which means they have a high level of influence in their extensive

networks. Consumers, architects and other consultants also have a very high level of

influence because they all directly take part in the development process, supervise

the construction, or represent the market demand. These six stakeholders are also

positioned around the centre in the influence concentric map, which indicates closer

partnerships during the development. In contrast, financial institutions and real estate

agencies lie on the edge of the concentric circle, which echoes the smaller levels of

influence they have as reflected in the spring map. This is probably because of their

singular roles in the development process.


(a) Stakeholder network spring map (b) Influence concentric circle

Figure 4.2. The stakeholder networks and influence in sustainable housing development

4.3.4.3 Stakeholders’ Willingness to Engage in Sustainable Housing

The respondents were asked to prioritise the willingness of their network

stakeholders to adopt sustainability through a Likert scale rating from 1 (very low) to

5 (very high). The results are shown in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Willingness to Engage in Sustainable Housing

Stakeholders To themselves From others To others

Government

agency 3.83 3.89 3.17

Developer 3.33 2.44 2.82

Builder 3.5 2.76 3.52

Architect/Designer N/A 3.88 3.17

Financial

institution 3.5 2 3.5

Real estate agency 2.5 2 3.58

Consumer N/A 3.17 N/A

Other consultant 2.5 3.75 2.97


Unsurprisingly, government agencies, architects and other consultants received

the highest rating of willingness (3.89, 3.88 and 3.75 respectively), which might be

because they take less risk from the transformation and more benefits to their

professions in the long term. Meanwhile, they seemed optimistic about their business

partners’ interests in engaging in sustainable housing. Although consumers are not

on the respondents’ list, they are believed to be supporting the sustainable housing

development with the willingness rating of 3.17. In contrast, developers and builders

are considered to be slow in accommodating sustainable housing (2.46 and 2.76,

respectively). It might signal that innovative elements alongside sustainability could

potentially drag them out of their comfort zone where they profitably do “business as

usual”.

It is interesting to see that these two major stakeholders both have confidence

in themselves despite their network partners indicating otherwise. Developers

generally do not think other professionals are passionate about sustainability

(willingness rating=2.82), while rating their own willingness above average at 3.33.

Builders, on the other hand, have great faith in the both others and themselves in

pursuing a sustainable future in the housing industry (3.52 and 3.50, respectively).

At the bottom of the list, financial institutions and real estate agencies seem to

be devoting less effort in initiating sustainability according to their immediate

network professionals. They both received a willingness score of 2.00 out of 5.

Noticeably, government agencies, architects and other consultants received a higher

rating in willingness than they gave themselves credit for, which again echoes the

prominence of their roles as expected by others.

Regarding the mutual attitude within stakeholder pairs, the survey also found

that partnerships involving government agencies or architects tend to be “mutually

willing” because of the passion of these two parties. On the other hand, developers

and builders mostly believed their supply chain partners are not willing to pursue

sustainability, and vice versa. In particular, developers are deemed unwilling but

influential partners by builders, other consultants and real estate agents. The same

critical issue was seen for builders and consumers who were defined as unwilling but

influential stakeholders by developers. This status accentuates the importance of

improving partnerships between developers, builders and consumers.


4.3.4.4 Main Findings of Stakeholders’ Characteristics

Respondents were asked to provide information about stakeholder

characteristics, including their networks, levels of influence and willingness to

engage in sustainable housing. Table 4.14 extracts and highlights the main findings

that have been discussed in this section.

Table 4.14 Main Findings of Stakeholder Characteristics

Investigated

Subjects Remarks

1.Immediate

network construct

Government agency officials, developers and consumers

work with almost all other stakeholders in sustainable

housing projects; whereas real estate agencies and

financial institutions target a limited number of

stakeholders in getting their job done.

2.Influence level of

decision-making

Government agency officials and developers have the

highest level of influence power of other stakeholders’

decision-making towards sustainable practice. Builders

and consumers also play important roles in shaping the

trend of sustainable housing development.

3.Willingness to

engage in

sustainable practice

Government agencies, architects and other consultants

were considered to bear high enthusiasm in engaging in

sustainable practice, due to the low financial risk they

have to take.

Despite the relatively high influence power on

sustainable housing development, developers and

builders were deemed as laggards in making the

“sustainable move”. However, they themselves believe

otherwise, which leaves space for catching up the trend

once due strategies are acted upon.

Consumers nowadays have enhanced their awareness of

sustainable practices.


4.3.5 Stakeholder Value Gap Based on Similarities and Differences of CAB Rankings

In order to reflect on the value gaps and common ground regarding the

challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable housing development among key

stakeholders, this section examines the similarity and differences of the CAB

significance found across different stakeholders. Three tests were conducted to form

a triangulation: a descriptive test on the frequency on the relative significance (rank),

a Kendall W test, and a Mann-Whitney test on the absolute value (Section 4.3.6

provides details of these tools).

In the first instance, the results of the descriptive statistics tests, as reported in

Table 4.15, showed different rankings of the CABs across stakeholders. The needs of

each stakeholder can be identified and compared to the industry trend. Additionally,

to assist the descriptive statistics tests in investigating the true differences of CAB

value, pair wise comparisons were conducted by means of a Kendall W test to

accurately unveil the level of differences for each stakeholder and their immediate

network partners. The nonparametric (Mann-Whitney) tests follow to bring the

comparison to each CAB level. The results of Kendall’s coefficient of concordance

and a Mann-Whitney test are summarised together in Table 4.16 for direct cross-

reference.

The results of Kendall’s W test were interpreted by coefficient of concordance

W that assesses the agreement between two parties. W ranges from zero (no

agreement) to one (complete agreement). For example, as we can see in the first two

columns in Table 4.16, Kendall’s W was 0.451 between respondents from

government agencies and real estate agencies, meaning a great degree of unanimity

between these two stakeholders on the CAB ranking. The results of the Mann-

Whitney test were interpreted by the probability value (p-value). If the p-value is less

than 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups. Columns 3 to 21 of

Table 4.16 show the probability values of the Mann-Whitney test on the CABs.

Among the 19 CABs, it is notable that all stakeholders have consensus on most of

the factors except for E2, S1, S4, S5, I1 and I3. This indicates that the respondents in

this sample in general do not have dramatic perception divergences.


Table 4.15 Ranking of the CABs according to Respondent’s Professional Background

CABs Overall Gov Dev Bui Arc Con Fin REA

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Technical and design challenges 3.74(3) 3.68(2) 3.875(3) 3.33(3) 3.56(4) 3.86(3) 3.85(2) 3.80(3)

T1. Inadequate or untested technologies or materials 3.35 19 3.00 17= 3.50 18 3.75 3= 3.30 17= 3.47 17= 3.75 8= 3.00 17= T2. Lack of professional education and training programs for industry

3.82 10= 4.00 3 3.75 15= 3.25 13= 3.30 17= 4.00 10 4.25 1= 4.00 5=


3.61 13 3.38 13 4.00 8= 3.00 16 3.30 17= 3.80 13= 3.75 8= 4.00 5=

T4. Lack of integrated design for life-cycle management 4.02 5= 3.88 4= 4.00 8= 2.75 17 3.90 4= 4.40 1= 3.75 8= 4.40 2= T5. Insufficient cost-benefit data from interdisciplinary research

3.90 7 4.13 2 4.25 4= 4.00 2 4.00 2= 3.73 15 3.75 8= 3.60 13=

Economic challenges 4.08(1) 3.96(1) 4.58(1) 3.89(1) 3.83(1) 4.11(2) 4.17(1) 4.40(1) E1. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change

4.08 2 3.88 4= 4.75 1= 3.75 3= 3.90 4= 4.20 5= 4.00 4= 4.20 4

E2. High investment cost 4.12 1 4.25 1 4.75 1= 3.75 3= 3.90 4= 3.93 11 4.25 1= 4.60 1 E3. Inadequate fiscal or other investment advantages 4.06 3= 3.75 8= 4.25 4= 4.25 1 3.70 9= 4.20 5= 4.25 1= 4.40 2=

Socio-cultural challenges 3.58(4) 3.45(4) 4.125(2) 3.19(4) 3.70(3) 3.68(4) 3.75(3) 3.24(4) S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change traditional practices

3.84 8= 3.88 4= 4.50 3 3.50 8= 3.70 9= 4.20 5= 3.25 18= 3.20 16


3.37 18 3.00 17= 3.75 15= 3.50 8= 3.60 13= 3.40 19 3.75 8= 2.80 19

S3. Lack of social conscience regarding climate change and natural resource preservation

3.57 15 3.63 10= 4.00 8= 3.25 13= 3.60 13= 3.53 16 4.00 4= 3.00 17=


3.59 14 2.63 19 4.00 8= 3.50 8= 3.70 9= 3.80 13= 4.00 4= 3.60 13=

S5. Contested functionality for consumers 3.53 17 3.13 16 4.25 4= 2.50 18= 3.90 4= 3.47 17= 3.75 8= 3.60 13= Institutional challenges 3.84(2) 3.46(3) 3.83(4) 3.39(2) 3.78(2) 4.20(1) 3.58(4) 3.87(2)

I1. Lack of collaborative integration 3.82 10= 3.88 4= 4.00 8= 2.50 18= 3.70 9= 4.20 5= 3.50 15= 3.80 9= I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks 3.55 16 3.25 14= 3.00 19 3.25 13= 3.50 16 3.87 12 3.50 15= 3.80 9= I3. Inadequate policing of green washing and unsustainable practices

4.02 5= 3.63 10= 3.75 15= 3.75 3= 4.10 1 4.40 1= 3.75 8= 4.00 5=

I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certificating and policymaking

3.84 8= 3.50 12 4.00 8= 3.50 8= 3.60 13= 4.27 4 3.50 15= 3.80 9=

I5. Lack of comprehensive code or policy package to guide action regarding sustainability

4.06 3= 3.75 8= 4.25 4= 3.75 3= 4.00 2= 4.33 3 4.00 4= 4.00 5=


3.78 12 3.25 14= 4.00 8= 3.50 8= 3.80 8 4.13 9 3.25 18= 3.80 9=


The following sections synthesise the results of the above three tests in detail,

in order to portray each key stakeholders’ need and significant similarities and

differences with their supply chain partners.

4.3.5.1 Government Agencies

Compared with the industry overall rank of CABs, government agency

respondents ranked technical and design challenges (2nd) over institutional ones (3rd),

while most other stakeholders believed the latter is more significant. Particularly in

the technical and design category, government agency respondents highlighted the

“lack of professional education” and “insufficient cost-benefit data” by giving two

of their top three ranks to these factors. This signified that government agency staff

feel this responsibility of providing industry education and linking sustainability with

scientific backup more than others do, being the initiator of the whole sustainable

campaign. As anticipated, they seemed more optimistic about the current policy

setting (I5) and incentive systems (E3), both of which were ranked eighth as opposed

to the overall rank 3rd. A need was seen to further negotiate and balance the current

“carrot and stick” political approach. However, this group has more doubts about the

mental readiness of the industry and the public for sustainable housing, and saw an

imperative to enhance collaborations.

The result of the Kendall W test indicated that government shared a similar

vision with developers and real estate agents, with a coefficient of concordance (W)

of 0.413 and 0.451, respectively. This figure showed less harmony when put together

with other industry practitioners (W ranged between 0.202 and 0.291), especially

builders (W=0.069). While it is interesting to see that stakeholders at the two ends of

the supply chain (government agencies and consumers) are on the same page in how

they prioritise their needs, it requires careful solutions to cope with the benefit

conflicts between these two stakeholders and the housing industry practitioners who

actually make changes in the construction process. Specifically, builders significantly

disagree with government on “Lack of collaborative integration”, with a P-value

from the Mann-Whitney test of 0.017. This is probably because governments have to

coordinate with more stakeholders in working together to achieve sustainable

outcomes, while builders mostly only take prescriptions and accordingly deal with

technical problems.


Table 4.16 Comparison of CABs among Stakeholders

Stakeholder Pairs

Kendall’s W Probability Values in Mann-Whitney Test (P)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 E1 E2 E3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 Gov/Dev .413*1 .319 .626 .597 .712 .654 .271 .847 .188 .384 .227 .718 .073 .575 .241 .716 .644 .674 .470 .338

Gov/Bui .069 .391 .669 .660 333 660 915 509 286 906 .526 .916 .282 .226 .017* 1.00 .736 .915 .911 .672

Gov/Arc .268 .561 .308 .963 .671 .846 .741 .265 1.00 .525 .130 .962 .104 .102 .555 .552 .136 .927 .631 .313

Gov/Con .291 .306 .973 .179 .074 .489 .321 .228 .170 .293 .332 .866 .047* .436 .221 .122 .009* .255 .080 .086

Gov/Fin .202 .245 .853 .542 .759 .407 .786 .637 .311 .188 .099 .535 .080 .309 .333 .711 .678 .141 .704 .789

Gov/REA .451* 1.00 .814 .199 .152 .208 .485 .622 .153 .112 .642 .319 .163 .489 .808 .443 .474 .706 .675 .365

Dev/Bui .162 .459 .853 .430 .368 .703 .237 .237 .823 .329 1.00 .578 .853 .026* .046* .853 .845 .853 .693 .853

Dev/Arc .459* .813 .604 .363 .941 1.00 .124 .063 .455 .116 .880 .451 .875 .751 .451 .245 .320 .552 .591 .767

Dev/Con .133 .953 .673 .453 .320 .454 .271 .047* .906 .414 .521 .406 .917 .370 .599 .077 .061 .436 .572 .746

Dev/Fin .209 .850 .617 .317 .617 .350 .155 .186 1.00 .099 .874 1.00 1.00 .617 .343 .343 1.00 .343 .617 .155

Dev/REA .232 .418 .893 .558 .411 .190 .273 .655 .655 .075 .203 .203 .561 .190 .694 .281 .694 .694 .558 .694

Bui/Arc .233 .430 .860 .728 .291 .716 .856 .926 .426 .927 .858 .928 .926 .051 .012* .718 .654 .860 .790 .930

Bui/Con .116 .407 .618 .328 .159 .536 .527 .896 .890 .522 .757 .951 .902 .177 .004* .452 .359 .512 .434 .657

Arc/con .319 .782 .224 .316 .367 .482 .476 .975 .280 .108 .498 .861 .860 .465 .034* .241 .410 .093 .241 .428

Arc/REA .235 .559 .475 .312 .555 .371 .692 .103 .272 .253 .169 .291 .609 .441 .888 .743 .796 .797 1.00 .949

Con/REA .525* .361 .781 .251 .922 .683 .888 .080 .685 .032 .254 .316 .579 .964 .252 .782 .364 .197 .266 .399

Fin/REA .324 .273 .558 .418 .107 .786 .694 .322 .665 .896 .171 .203 .561 .702 .592 .786 .694 .592 1.00 .273

1. In the Kendall test, *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 2. In the Mann-Whitney test, *Probability value is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)


As a result, builders have less of a vision for all parties to work together to

achieve better practices. Additionally, other consultants show divergences with

government on S4 “Insufficient media promotion of scientific advantages” and I3

“Inadequate policing of green washing or other unsustainable practices” (P=0.47 and

0.009, respectively). This reflects the industry’s need for government to further

provide scientifically sound information to help practitioners’ decision-making, and

reduce the strictness of punishing green labelling when the public can tell which

sustainable products are more scientifically beneficial. One means could be a public-

shared knowledge hub as suggested by UK Government (2009).

4.3.5.2 Developers

Developers stand out from the rest for the reportedly great social-cultural

CABs they encountered (ranked 2nd), while they rated institutional challenges as less

significant (ranked 4th). In particular, four out of five social-cultural CABs received

a higher-rated ranking by at least 5 places from developers compared with the overall

ranking, including S1 “Reluctance to leave the comfort zone” (3rd), “Lack of social

conscience about climate change” (8th), S4 “Insufficient media coverage” (8th) and

S5 “Contested functionality of consumers” (4th). Concern about the mental readiness

for a sustainable change (S1) was believed to be one of the top three hindrances

along with the other two cost-benefit challenges to developers. It seems that

developers do not think the social atmosphere is ready yet for the housing industry to

embrace sustainability. However, it is also reasonable to infer that whoever values

this challenge does not leave their comfort zone and therefore shifts the

responsibility to other stakeholders in the supply chain. Panawek (2007) argues that

although “lack of market demand” is the leading constraint for developers to take up

sustainability, they should be able to put sustainable housing with acceptable cost-

benefit data in the market in the first place.

More importantly, considering the extremely low ranking developers gave the

functional benefits of consumers (4th compared with the overall 17th), they strongly

advocate a clear understanding and a scientific underpinning of sustainability. This

echoes the highly valued challenges regarding rating tools (T3) and cost-benefit data

(T5). Interestingly, being accused by many as the cause of green washing, developers

only ranked green washing issues (I3) 15th on their CAB ranking. Additionally, they


suffer from “duplication and confusion arising from policies” (I6) more than other

stakeholders, being one of the direct regulation subjects.

The results of the Kendall W test indicated a high degree of consensus on CAB

ranking between developers and architects (W=0.459). This could be because

architects normally get involved early in the development and directly implement the

developer’s project plan through design. On the other hand, divergence exists

between developers and other groups of respondents, especially builders and other

consultants who share the least common viewpoint with developers in prioritising

CABs (W=0.162 and 0.133, respectively).

In particular, builders demonstrate a significant difference from developers in

understanding S5 “Contested functionality of consumers” with a Mann-Whitney P-

value of 0.26. This reveals they are more positive about the possibility of bringing

tangible benefits to consumers, which could be a result of the builders’ hands-on

experiences in operating sustainable products and first-hand feedback from

consumers. However, developers and their salespeople do not consider functionality

as a major selling point. While further calling for scientific data to back up the

functionality advantage, developers seem to need systematic education on

sustainability so that they can in turn influence the market demand. This aligns with

the finding by Williams and Dair (2007) about developers’ lack of knowledge and

lagging-behind in awareness. Meanwhile, builders reported to be worrying less about

“Lack of collaborative integration” (I1) than developers (P=0.46). This reflects the

coordination role developers are taking in creating a housing project. Meanwhile, not

surprisingly, a P-value of 0.47 indicates developers and consultants have the greatest

disagreement on “High investment cost” (E2). This, on one hand, suggests that

developers being the original investors of housing projects tend to avoid unnecessary

financial risk; on the other hand, it means that consultants might be able to provide

up-to-date cost-benefit data they obtained from the research frontier. Closer

communication between professional consultants and developers could provide a

resolution to bridge the discrepancy. The above factors all contribute to the latent

conflicts hindering their collaboration in sustainable housing developments, and

should be urgently addressed in upcoming research.


4.3.5.3 Builders

Not dissimilar to the overall ranking, builders gave priorities to economic,

institutional and technical CABs. Noticeably, this group gave the highest score to

“Fiscal or other investment advantage” (E3) instead of the more commonly agreed

“High investment cost” (E2). This implies those who undertake direct changes in

incorporating innovations into the building process respond more to a rewarding

system. Additionally, “Insufficient cost-benefit data from interdisciplinary research”

(T5) achieved a 2nd ranking among builders. Builders might encounter difficulties in

making efficient choices of sustainable technologies or products without a specific

cost-benefit comparison. Another challenge that is associated with the cost-benefit

data, “Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials” (T1), also

received an exceptionally high score from builders. It was ranked the third as

opposed to an average rank of 19th by all respondents. It again reflects the critical

roles that builders play in the actual construction process and the according technical

risk they have to take at both the pre-construction and post-construction stages.

Interestingly, builders ranked “Integrated design for life-cycle management” (T4)

only 17th, 12 places down compared to the overall rank of fifth. Given that

developers also undervalued this challenge by three places on the list, it seems that

developers and builders tend to put the emphasis on initial building practices over a

long-term and systematic design. This might relate to their business mode being

driven by short-term profits and the need to relieve the initial-cost pressure from the

uncertainty of marketplace.

No significant divergences on the overall ranking arose between builders and

their immediate network partners according to the Kendall W test. However, builders

differed from a few other stakeholders in “Lack of collaborative integration (e.g.

clear leadership and roles among stakeholders)” (I1). The Mann-Whitney P-value

between builders and government, developers, architects and other consultants

respectively arrived at 0.17, 0.46, 0.12 and 0.04. This indicated that establishing

collaborative activities appears to be very important to the stakeholders on the upper-

stream supply chain, while builders could have been an obstructing factor in

achieving essential partnerships.


4.3.5.4 Architects/Designers

Architects showed least concern about the technical and design challenges

(4th) among all stakeholders, although “Integrated design for life cycle management”

(T4) and “Cost-benefit data” (T5) remained high on their list with a fourth and

second ranking. Apparently, this group values the up-to-date knowledge and theories

of housing sustainability and hopes to include the appropriate products into the

bigger picture as accurately as they can in the long term. Comparatively, economic

challenges, although taking up the first place among four micro categories, appeared

to be less a worry for architects. For example, “Fiscal and other investment

advantages” (E3) was only ranked 9th, six places lower than the overall third place.

This might be due to the nature of being an architect/designer to adapt to any new

learning curve and deliver the best possible design for a building’s lifespan. In other

words, they posit high standards for design and the related cost-benefit

consequences. To this end, a highly ranked challenge regarding the consumer

functionality (S5, ranked 4th compared to the overall 17th) signalled space for

sustainable technology and design to improve. It is noteworthy that the number 1

rated CAB for this stakeholder went to “Inadequate policing of green washing and

unsustainable practices” (I3), which reflects the fact that good designs from

architects/designers often do not get through the pipeline of the construction process.

Given a highly coinciding rank between architects/designers and developers

(Kendall’s W=0.459), builders seem to emerge as a key determinant in implementing

sustainable design and technologies. Finally, considering the relatively simple

network construct of architects/designers, it is not surprising to find that this group

gave a significantly lower rating on “Lack of collaborative integration” (I1) than

other consultants did (Mann-Whitney P-value=0.34).

4.3.5.5 Other Consultants

Standing out in the survey results is the number 1 ranking given to institutional

CABs rather than the economic ones. Engaging in working towards stakeholder

collaboration and integrated design, professional consultants understand the

possibility of tackling economic barriers more than others do. Therefore, “High

investment cost” (E2) only attained 11th place among the 19 CABs from consultants,

which revealed the information and knowledge asymmetry between those “early

adopters” and other stakeholders. In contrast, four of the top 4 ranked CABs went to


the institutional category, respectively highlighting green washing issues (I3, 1st), a

comprehensive code (I5, 3rd), the slow administrative process of policymaking and

administration (I4, 4th), and collaborative integration (I1, 5th). Furthering

consultants’ systematic thinking is another tied number 1 CAB identified by this

group, “Lack of integrated design for life-cycle management” (T4). The high ranking

of T4 is in sharp contrast with the 15th rank of “Insufficient cost-benefit data” (T5),

while the latter was overall ranked eight places higher on the list (7th). Consultants

seem to believe that satisfactory cost-benefit data will be automatically achieved

when sound integration and systemisation occur in multiple stakeholders’ roles,

available policies and sustainable technologies.

A high level of agreement was seen to be achieved between consultants and

real estate agents according to the Kendall W test (W=0.525). Since real estate agents

to a large extent represent the consumers’ needs, consultants seemed to be

understanding the market demand well. However, a P-value of 0.32 indicates that

consultants responded strongly to the industry-wide “reluctance to leave the comfort

zone” (S1), while real estate agents thought otherwise. This might indicate the

information asymmetry and inner conflict between this early adopter group and many

others.

4.3.5.6 Financial Institutions

Considering limited representation of a series of technical and political aspects

of sustainability, financial institutions’ feedback reasonably emphasised economic

issues and education or information provision. They particularly differ from others in

valuing “Lack of professional education and training programs for industry” (T2) and

“Insufficient demand-side education from media” (S4), respectively a 1st and 4th

ranking compared with the overall 10th and 14th ranking. This indicates the urgent

need for additional information coverage and education programs for both financial

institutions and consumers. Additionally, this group reported exceptionally higher

rankings than other groups in “Reputation increase” (S2) (8th compared to overall

18th) and “Social conscience in environmental issues” (S3) (4th compared to overall

15th). This again implied the lack of information regarding “going sustainable” from

financial institutions and their clients, that is, consumers or developers. These

laggards probably need to go through a professional learning curve to keep up with

the transformation towards sustainable housing. Kendall’s W test and the Mann-


Whitney test showed neither significant similarities nor differences in the perceptions

between financial institutions and stakeholders in their immediate network.

4.3.5.7 Real Estate Agencies

In general, real estate agencies were found to share a similar vision of CAB

significance with the rest of the industry. However, two technical and design

challenges were highlighted by this stakeholder group: “Lack of professional

education and training programs for industry” (T2) and “Lack of methodologies and

tolls to measure sustainability” (T3). They both received a rank of fifth place as

opposed to the overall rank of 10th and 13th. This reflects that the mainstream

marketplace will not be ready for sustainable housing before industry practitioners

can scale up and provide accurate measurements and definitions of housing

sustainability.

4.3.5.8 Main Findings of Stakeholders’ Value Gaps

As discussed above, there are similarities and differences among the different

stakeholder groups in their rankings of CAB significance. Table 4.17 extracts and

highlights the main findings.

Table 4.17 Main Findings of Stakeholders’ Value Gaps

Stakeholder Remarks

1. Government

agency

Value the need of supply side education, establishing

solid cost-benefit database and intensive collaboration

Consider current legislation/policy setting as less of a

problem

Having similar perceptions as consumers on CAB

rankings

2. Developer Encounter bigger challenges in the market demand and

the confusion and parallel policies from government.

Strong need for a solid cost-benefit database

Doubt the functionality of sustainable housing for


consumers, which rendered a big divergence with

builders

3. Builder Value technologies and material over integrated design

and life-cycle management

Strong need for a solid cost-benefit database

Place less value on collaborative integration, which

results in value gaps with government, developers,

architects and other consultants

4. Architect/Designer Value integrated design and life-cycle management

over technologies and material

Doubt the functionality of sustainable housing for

consumers

Have similar perceptions to developers on CAB

ranking

Have fewer concerns about economic challenges

Have the greatest challenge of green washing issues

5. Other consultants Have the least concerns on economic challenges and

cost-benefit data among all stakeholders

Value integrated design and stakeholder collaboration

Strong need of comprehensive and efficient regulation

or policy setting

Good understanding of market demand

6.Financial institution Strong need for sustainability education and

information

Encounter bigger challenges in achieving brand

recognition and developing social conscience regarding


sustainability

7. Real estate agency Strong need for supply side training and education

Encounter bigger challenges in tools measuring

sustainability

4.4 SUMMARY

This chapter presented the results of the questionnaire survey of stakeholders in

the Australian housing industry with the aim to preliminarily understand the

significance and interrelations of CABs, and compare various needs across key

stakeholder groups. Fifty respondents come from, and thereby represent, seven key

stakeholder groups in the housing development process: government agencies,

developers, builders, architects, other consultants, financial institutions and real

estate agents.

The 19 CABs were prioritised according to their significance by the seven

groups of stakeholders. The findings show that economic CABs are perceived to be

the most significant in affecting stakeholders’ benefits in general. Institutional issues

such as policymaking efficiency, policy implementation strictness and inadequate

collaborations also received great attention from hands-on practitioners such as

architects/designers, builders and other consultants, and therefore emerged as the

second significant group of factors. While technical and design factors were proven

less of a hindrance for stakeholders to achieve benefits from sustainable housing,

integrated design and a credible cost-benefit database loomed as a fundamental

cornerstone. Somewhat surprisingly, the respondents in this survey assigned

relatively low importance to socio-cultural CABs. All stakeholders, except for

developers, believed the Australian housing industry is mentally ready for

sustainability. Premised on the above preliminary findings, the next stage of the

research entails an in-depth interview to identify critical CABs, corresponding

strategies, and the specific roles and benefits of key stakeholders.

Chapter 5: Interview Study 117

Chapter 5: Interview Study

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The questionnaire survey has preliminarily identified the importance of the 19

challenges of achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing development. It

also compared the common and differing perceptions of CAB ranking across

different stakeholders to unveil the value gaps in between. To extend the two-fold

quantitative findings from the questionnaire and further understand the grounding

reasons, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven key stakeholders

in the Australian housing industry. This chapter first presents the background

information regarding the interview purposes, administration and samplings. It then

reports on the specific roles, benefits and risks for key stakeholders in Australian

sustainable housing development. This knowledge creates a vision of associating

housing sustainability with the dynamic characteristic of the supply chain, in order to

bridge related value gaps between key stakeholders. It thereafter leads into the

investigation of current practices, problems and strategies regarding the 19 CABs in

the identified multi-stakeholder context. The finalised findings on diverse

stakeholder needs, CAB significance and CAB interrelationship will come together

to pave the way for establishing a list of commonly agreed critical factors of

achieving mutual benefits and a collaborative paradigm among key stakeholders in

Chapter 6.

5.2 INTERVIEW INSTRUMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

5.2.1 Interview Purpose

The qualitative interview study triangulates and further explain the

questionnaire findings by :

Exploring what has changed in terms of the stakeholders roles and work

process during the transition from conventional housing to sustainable

housing;

Identifying and comparing the diverse benefits and risks for key

stakeholders during the transformation, and in turn examining the supply

chain value gaps and collective goals; and

118 Chapter 5: Interview Study

Investigating the current state, problems and strategies related to each

CAB, and in turn laying the foundation for identifying critical CABs and

their interrelationship.

5.2.2 Approach of the Interview

Depending on the purpose of the study, interviews can be unstructured, semi-

structured or structured (Adams et al., 2010). Saunders et al. (2009) summarises the

general rule of thumb for selecting the appropriate type of interview for the particular

research purpose, as shown in Table 5.1. As discussed, the purpose of the interview

in this research is three-fold. Identifying the specific roles, benefits and risks for

stakeholders in sustainable housing projects reflects the exploratory nature of the

study, while consolidating the questionnaire findings regarding CABs is mainly of an

explanatory nature. Therefore, a semi-structured interview was selected.

Table 5.1 Comparison of Interview Types (based on Saunders et al. 2009)

Exploratory Descriptive Explanatory

Structured A means to identify general patterns

Could be applicable in a statistical sense

Semi-structured

Could be applicable in a statistical sense

Understand the relationships between variables, especially the revelation from descriptive study

Unstructured (In-depth)

Very helpful to find out what is happening and to seek new insights

The semi-structured approach produces a ‘roadmap’ which guides the

researcher through the interview. It is located somewhere between the extremes of a

completely standardised and completely non-standardised interview. This type of

interview involves the implementation of a number of predetermined questions

and/or special topics. These questions are typically asked of each interviewee in a

systematic and consistent order, but the interviewers are allowed freedom to digress;

that is, the interviewers are permitted (in fact, expected) to probe far beyond the

answers to their prepared and standardised questions (Berg, 2001). The semi-


structured interview also makes good use of the limited time available. In this

research, supplementary open-ended questions are also used to allow the researcher

to be exploratory, highly responsive and adaptable on questions regarding the two

complex systems: sustainable value and housing supply chain diversity.

Interviews can be conducted face-to-face, by telephone or internet-mediated.

The choice of the format mainly depends on complexity of the issues, length of time

required, and the geographical convenience of both sides (Sekaran, 2006). Face-to-

face interviews are advantageous when direct communication is in need to ensure the

accuracy and expand questions on a complex issue. However, it could be hindered by

geographical factors. Telephone interviews are ideal to cover geographically remote

interviewees, but may not allow the same scope for interviewers to clarify or extend

questions. Although internet-mediated interviews nowadays could be economical

with the advancement of remote video systems and recording software, it obtains a

relatively lower audio quality.

Having considered the above factors, this research adopted both face-to-face

interviews and telephone interviews to cover respondents from around Australia. The

former was used with those participants located in Brisbane or South-East

Queensland area to ensure the highest extent of accuracy and the ability to ask ad-lib

questions. Graphical results from the questionnaire were also able to be presented

and understood during conversations in person. For those participants who were

spread in other states of Australia (New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania),

telephone interview was selected as the mode of secondary choice.

5.2.3 Interview Question Design and Interview Administration

The design of the interview questions is guided by the results of the

questionnaire survey. Five major questions were designed with three to four

supplementary questions so as to allow detailed narratives as shown in Table 5.2.

Adjustments were made based on the specific questionnaire findings pertaining to

different stakeholders’ professional capacity. For example, as per the theme “Current

status and strategies of CABs”, stakeholders were provided with different top 10 lists

of CABs according to their various responses in the questionnaire.


Table 5.2 Interview Questions

Themes Major questions Sub-questions

Roles and

work

processes

What do you really have to do

differently to get a sustainable housing

project done (compared with

conventional/unsustainable housing)?

Extra work process

New interaction with

supply chain partners

Benefits and

risks

In reality, regarding the tangible benefit

you expect from engaging in sustainable

housing, what is good and not so good?

Supply chain partners

who are harmed or

benefited from the

transformation towards

sustainable practices

Conflicts of

interest and

collective

goals

Comment on the relationship between

you and your supply chain partner(s)

(based on the questionnaire findings

regarding willingness to adopt

sustainable practices).

Perceived value gap

(based on the

questionnaire findings

regarding different

rankings of CABs among

stakeholders)

Mutual benefit

paradigms

Current status

and strategies

of CABs

Comment on the reasons for the top 10

CABs ranked by your stakeholder from

questionnaire survey.

What strategies would you

suggest to tackle the top 10

CABs? What is the expected

result?

Other

comments

Are there any salient points regarding

sustainable housing implementation

missing from the interview?

Three pilot interviews were conducted with one industry consultant and two

academic professionals in order to test the suitability and comprehensibility of

questions. This task was conducted by asking the following questions as suggested

by (Adams et al., 2010; Berg, 2001):


Has the researcher included all of the questions necessary to address the

interview purposes?

Is the language appropriate?

Are there other problems such as double meaning or multiple issues in one

question?

Does the interview schedule as developed help motivate interviewees?

Does the interview guide, as developed, help to motivate respondents to

participate in the study?

Twenty formal interviews were conducted between February and March 2011.

An appointment was made with each interviewee with the following information

electronically provided for good preparation:

A cover letter (refer to Appendix B1)

The interview question sheet (refer to Appendix B2).

The QUT Research Ethical Consent Form (refer to Appendix C)

Interviews generally lasted between 50 to 75 minutes, depending on the

boundary of interviewee’s professional work and their experiences with

sustainability issues. For example, a director with the top range development

company with more than 25 years working experience was given extra time to focus

in more depth on unexpected information. Such flexibility can encourage the

emergence of the “outside the box” insights and enrich the connotation of housing

sustainability in Australia. All interviews were tape-recorded, accompanied by notes,

and typed up immediately afterwards.

5.2.4 Interviewee Profile

Similar to the questionnaire respondents, the interviewees for the semi-

structured interview consisted of the seven key stakeholders identified in the

analytical protocol. However, unlike the standard for the appointment of the

questionnaire respondents, the selected interviewees needed to have robust

knowledge and extensive experience of housing development and sustainability

issues. Therefore, a “purposeful snowball sampling” was adopted to obtain

information from specific target groups (Sekaran, 2006). Both “in sample

interviews” and “out of sample interviews” were conducted for purposive sampling.


The former involved those who have been surveyed to further clarify facts, while the

latter included newly emergent informants as a powerful way to ascertain the degree

of generalisation of the results (Adams, et al., 2010). Most interviewees (70%) were

selected from initial questionnaire contacts, while the rest were recommended

through the snowball method due to their seniority in the industry. The target

interview population covers major states of Australia to represent the sustainable

housing development in Australia. Out of 35 candidates, 20 were finally selected on

the basis of their experience and roles. A summary of the interviewee profiles is

shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Interviewee Profiles

Responden

t

Organisation

characteristic Role in projects

Experienc

e (years)

Intervie

w mode

R1 Government

Director of

Technical Services

Group

10-15 Face-to-

face

R2 Government Director of Housing

Innovation Unit 10-15

Interview

mode

missing

here

R3 Government

Coordinator of

Sustainable Housing

Projects

5-10 Face-to-

face

R4 Government/Develop

er

Director/Sustainabili

ty Manager 20+

Face-to-

face

R5 Developer Sustainability

Approval Manager 10-15

Telephon

e

R6 Developer

National

Environment

Manager

10-15 Telephon

e

R7 Developer/Builder Director 20+ Face-to-

face


R8 Builder Manager Director 20+ Telephon

e

R9 Professional

organisation

Sustainable Building

Advisor 5-10

Telephon

e

R10 Architecture firm Director/Principal

Architect 20+

Face-to-

face

R11 Architecture firm Director/Principal

Designer 20+

Telephon

e

R12 Designing/Consulting

firm

Sustainability

Manager 20+

Face-to-

face

R13 Engineer/Consulting

firm Director/Consultant 20+

Telephon

e

R14 Consulting firm Director/Sustainabili

ty Consultant 10-15

Telephon

e

R15 Consulting firm

Principal

Sustainability

Consultant

20+ Face-to-

face

R16 Consulting firm Director/Sustainabili

ty Manager 5-10

Telephon

e

R17 Financial Institution Strategic Solution

Manager 15-20

Telephon

e

R18 Financial Institution Branch Manager 5-10 Face-to-

face

R19 Real Estate Agency Marketing Executive 10-15 Face-to-

face

R20 Real Estate Agency Chief Agent 0-5 Face-to-

face

The 20 interviewees are spread evenly across the seven key stakeholder groups

as shown in Table 5.4. Specifically, 15% of them are from government agencies,

developers and builders, 25% from other professional consultancies, and 10% from

architects, real estate agents and financial institutions, respectively. It is worth

mentioning that participant R4 takes the lead role in a government-funded


development authority, and thus covers both the government and developer

professions. The same is seen with R7 who directs a large building and development

company. R9 from the biggest builders’ association represent the builders’ voice.

Table 5.4 Statistical Breakdown of Interviewees

Interviewee types Percentage

(%)

By profession

Government Agency Officials 15%

Developers 15%

Builders 15%

Architects/Designers 10%

Consultants 25%

Financial Institutions 10%

Real Estate Agents 10%

By executive level Manager/Director 85%

Other 15%

By geographical spread

New South Wales 10%

Victoria 20%

Queensland 60%

Tasmania 10%

All 20 respondents have been involved with sustainable housing development

or business. A majority of them (17, or 85%) hold director or top management

positions with influence and decision-making power regarding sustainable housing

development. The composition of the high-ranking professionals with their extensive

experiences ensures a strong data-input validity and a holistic representation of

housing industry perceptions. Additionally, the geographical spread of the

interviewees covers the major states of Australia including Victoria, New South

Wales and Queensland. This ensures that interviewee viewpoints could be

generalised to represent Australia-wide knowledge and experience regarding

sustainable housing development.


5.2.5 Qualitative Content Analysis

5.2.5.1 The Concept of Qualitative Content Analysis

Content analysis was chosen as an inductive approach to the interview data

analysis and model building, with the expectation that clear concepts and

propositions will emerge as a result. Content analysis is a popular approach to the

analysis of both quantitative and qualitative information and a potent technique for

researchers to understand what is there (Adams, et al., 2010). As the name suggests,

the purpose of content analysis is to describe the content of the respondents’

comments systematically and to classify the various meanings expressed in the

material that has been recorded.

In particular, this research adopted qualitative content analysis with an

integrated vision of speech and the specific context, in contrast with the traditional

quantitative approach where themes and patterns manifest through merely counting

words or extracting objective content. Hsieh & Shannon (2005) define it as a

research method “for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through

the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns”.

Because qualitative content analysis tends to involve purposively selected text to

address the research questions, it is able to avoid the situation where syntactical and

semantic information embedded in the text is missing from a typical quantitative

approach. Additionally, qualitative content analysis is mainly inductive, and

therefore more appropriate for generating theories, which prepares the formulation of

a preliminary framework as designated in the research design. Moreover, (Smith,

1975) suggested that qualitative content analysis deals with the antecedent-

consequent patterns of form, while the quantitative approach deals with duration and

frequency of form. The former captures informants’ descriptions or expressions in

detail and highlights the extraction of unique themes that could expand the

connotation of the researched subject, rather than the statistical significance of the

occurrence of presumed concepts. This feature caters for the particular purpose of

this interview study to explain and distil the questionnaire survey findings that were

produced mostly with the statistical approach.

5.2.5.2 The Process of Qualitative Content Analysis

To support valid and reliable inferences, qualitative content analysis generally

entails eight systematic steps for processing the data: (1) prepare the data; (2) define


the unit of analysis; (3) develop categories and a coding scheme; (4) test the coding

scheme on a sample of text; (5) code all the text; (6) assess coding consistency; (7)

draw conclusions from the coded data; and (8) report the methods and findings. The

eight steps lead to a focus on identifiable themes and patterns and gradually reduce

the interview data into areas relating to the purpose of the study. This process can be

flexible depending on the particular purpose of the study (Zhang & Wildemuth,

2009). The qualitative content analysis in this research adopts six standardised steps

based on the particular nature of this research as follows:

Step1: Prepare the Data

Twenty interviews audios were fully transcribed into approximately 250 pages

in Word files before analysis started. The 20 Word files were then imported into the

QSR NVivo 9 program for coding in the subsequent steps.

Step 2: Define the Unit of Analysis

Instead of using physical linguistic units like a word, sentence or paragraph,

qualitative content analysis often employs individual themes as the unit of analysis.

Instances of themes could include any linguistic unit as long as the analyst is

primarily looking for the expression of an idea (Minichiello, 1990). Accordingly, the

unit of analysis of this interview study was defined by reference to pre-designed

themes such as roles, work process, benefit, risk and collaboration.

Step 3: Develop Coding Schemes

The researcher predetermined five coding categories based on the review of the

literature and the results of the questionnaire survey. The first stage of coding was

accordingly conducted deductively until new, related themes emerged and the

inductive approach was used. The second stage of coding then followed with the aid

of the constant comparative method to reaffirm existing categories, integrate related

categories and seize emerging categories (Glaser et al., 1968). With the assistance of

the QSR NVivo9 program, 10 nodes representing 10 coding categories were created

as shown in Table 5.5. Meanwhile, all the coded ideas were assigned with a

“stakeholder” attribute, and eventually distilled as the essential findings under each

of the seven key stakeholder groups. For example, all the discussion regarding the

potential mutual benefits of engaging in sustainable housing was coded under the

“MB” node and classified under specific stakeholders.


Table 5.5 NVivo Coding Summary

Coding nodes Number of references

from coded sources

Number of coding

sources

Work process and roles 97 15

Benefit gain 49 13

Benefit loss (risk) 34 12

Current collaboration 34 8

Potential collaboration 12 8

Mutual benefits paradigm 25 10

CAB practices & solutions 100 13

Other issues raised 35 12

Behaviour change 52 13

New paradigm 55 12

Step 4: Test Coding Scheme on a Sample

The coding consistency of the first coded theme, “work process”, was checked.

No major adjustment was made.

Step 5: Code All the Text

All the 20 interviews were carefully examined and the core ideas were

excerpted and coded under the 10 themes without any significant new themes

emerging. The 10 themes were eventually sorted into four categories in the interview

report (presented in detail in Appendix B3).

Step 6: Draw Conclusions from the Coded Data

The last step involves interpreting the themes identified and exploring their

properties and dimensions (Bradley, 1993). The outcome of this step is reported in

detail in the following sections.

5.2.5.3 The Validity of Qualitative Content Analysis

There are four criteria for evaluating interpretive research work such as

qualitative content analysis: credibility, transferability, dependability and

conformability (Bradley, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Table 5.6 provides a

description of each criteria and the techniques this interview study adopted to

establish these criteria.


Table 5.6 Criteria and Validity of Qualitative Content Analysis of this Research

Criteria Description Techniques used to establish

criteria

Credibility Adequate representation of the

constructions of the social

world under study.

Triangulate interviewee

response

Use precise coding definitions

and clear coding procedures

Select high-profile

interviewees

Transferability The extent to which the

researcher’s working

hypothesis can be applied to

another context.

Provide rich datasets and

descriptions of how data

evolved to knowledge

(Appendix B2)

Dependability The coherence of the internal

process and the way the

researcher accounts for

changing conditions in the

phenomena.

Adopt six standardised steps

to ensure the consistency of

the study process

Confirmability The extent to which the

characteristics of the data, as

posited by the researcher, can

be confirmed by others who

read or review the research

results.

Distinguish data, information,

knowledge (findings) and

wisdom

(outcome/recommendation)

(as discussed in Section 3.4.5)

5.3 INTERVIEW RESULTS

Due to the adherent connections and interplay between data, information,

knowledge (finding) and wisdom (outcome) of a qualitative interview method (refer

to Section 3.4.5), it is essential to specify the notion of each type of result and how


they should be processed and thus presented in the particular context of the current

study. Table 5.7 outlines this information.

Table 5.7 Approaches to Presenting the Interview Results

Type of

results Specific notion in the interview Approaches to presentation

Data

20 transcribed interview

conversations (approximately 250

A4 pages)

Shown in appendix exemplifying

one interview transcript to

demonstrate how it was collected,

what form it took, and how that

text was coded into order

Information

Coded and condensed text (data)

displayed in 28 systematically

organised tables in order to trigger

thinking

Excerpted in Chapter 5 to

provide evidence and

assist analysis

Sample displayed in the

appendix (Appendix B2)

Knowledge

(finding)

Triangulated data through

cross-reference with

questionnaire finding or in

between various expert

opinions

Element of the preliminary

framework to be formed in

Chapter 6

Fully presented in Chapter 5 upon

discussion of the excerpted

information

Wisdom

(outcome)

The framework distilled from a

good number of knowledge Presented in Chapter 6


5.3.1 Roles and Work Processes of Key Stakeholders in Sustainable Housing Development

5.3.1.1 Government

Government is influential from the top-down perspective because it drives the

Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) by mandating. They put the

challenge to the developers and builders, and then receive feedback about feasibility.

Governments also approve the land use and fast tracking of sustainable developments

by providing fiscal and non-fiscal incentives. As one respondent commented:

“Brisbane City Council might let you have ten units per acre, the ULDA

[Urban Land Development Authority] will let you put in 15 units per acre.

So developer’s land cost is being amortised across more units so you get a

better uplift.”(R12)

Another commonly recognised role of government is providing education to

industry stakeholders through either technical assistance or demonstrative projects.

Interviewees reported that government often facilitates demonstrative sustainable

housing as the coordinator between the industry and the scientific community:

“We specify design guideline of sustainability on government land to build

500 social housing. We get the funding to do that or release to other private

developers in the development stage. We demonstrate the benefits.”(R3)

Government might also act as a public developer, because it knows what new

technology is available and therefore will be able to demonstrate to others how to do

things differently and show the related benefits, which is very much an educational

process. Finally, yet importantly, government develops various educational courses

in high schools and tertiary institutions to boost awareness.

Highlights of government’s role and work process: Challenge industry practitioners via regulations

Provide favourable fiscal or other incentives to fast track sustainable housing

projects

Coordinate industry practitioners in developing demonstrative projects and

facilitate education

Act as public developers to bring sustainable technologies and design to the

market


5.3.1.2 Developers

Developers create housing projects to meet the need of the marketplace. Since

their mission is creating communities that are attractive to home-buyers, their

definition of sustainable practice tends to revolve around accessibility and

affordability, rather than sound ecological design. As one interviewee commented:

“Big developers do have a sustainable side to them. But they have this other

side that just totally clears a patch of land and sticks up millions of houses

on top of each other and leaves no trees.”(R3)

When they put on their “sustainability hat”, developers are able to mandate the

builder to include certain sustainable elements through covenants according to

government regulation. Builders, in turn, apply those elements to their design.

Developers should also spend effort into training real estate sales people to make

sure that the key messages are coming across:

“Developers are in a position where they can plan, design, and drive a

project.”(R6)

Taking a role in briefing industry stakeholders would give developers the

opportunity to show leadership in sustainability from the supply side. The

questionnaire responses indicate that developers believe they encounter significant

social adoption challenges. However, it is not realistic to expect the market demand

to grow before developers can provide a different product. This was expressed by

one interview as follows:

“As opposed to the argument that no market is buying, I argue if you don’t

give them the option then how do they know there’s something else they can

buy.” (R16)

5.3.1.3 Builders

Builders take less financial risk than developers. They meet client’s specific

needs as long as the clients are prepared to pay for it. According to one interviewee:

Highlights of developers’ role and work process: Orientated towards housing accessibility and affordability rather than

ecological design in meeting the needs of the marketplace

Briefing and coordinating other industry stakeholders through covenants

Often have both a “sustainable side” and a “business as usual” side


“Builders are all about selling a product. They are a lot more driven by the

sales process than the design process.” (R6)

However, builders now must supply a minimum six-star energy rating when

applying for a building permit for any client. Accordingly, during the design and

building process, they directly pick up the risk of incurring the additional cost of

sustainable technologies and materials. This explains the finding in the questionnaire

that builders have a great need to receive further incentives and obtain reliable cost-

benefit data to lower the risk:

“One issue for builders would be that they have to fix it if any new product

goes wrong within a few years.” (R9)

Three interviewees also pointed out that although builders are directly affected

by regulation in how they do their business, they do not have a direct communication

channel with government:

“The committee HIA or MBA meet regularly to negotiate with government

regulators on behalf of builders.” (R7)

5.3.1.4 Architects/Designers

“Architects understand the elements of sustainability in design, since

sustainability is inherent in what they do and sell.” (R6)

Once a covenant is passed from the builders, designers will try to deliver

sustainability as prescribed. They either go through a learning curve by themselves,

or take professional training from associations like the Business Educators

Association and the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA). With what they have

learnt in the design process, architects can educate clients about new products,

Highlights of builders’ role and work process: Take the actual technical tasks of implementing sustainable housing design

and technologies and post-construction service

Communicate with clients in detail and try to deliver what the clients

prescribe in covenants

Depend on industry associations such as the MBA to negotiate with

government regarding their wants in housing sustainability


technologies and related benefits. However, as interviewee R11 pointed out,

designers’ influence on developers’ decision-making towards innovative design is

limited compared with the legislative prescription”. This is probably because

architects are paid by commission so they do not have the same economic concerns

as the developers.

5.3.1.5 Sustainability Consultants

In sustainable housing projects, consultants explore collaboration and

integration opportunities, and then educate other stakeholders about the benefits and

goals. This was explained by one interviewee as follows:

“Consultants are looking for synergistic result where all can come off the

same level of understanding from the beginning and work towards the same

goal throughout the project.” (R12)

The nature of the consultant’s job entails meeting stakeholder’s various needs:

“The developers and builders want lower dollars per square metre, so we

analyse the value chain and then find ways to get this seeming paradigm,

such as producing hot water from a centralised system, etc. …Government

wants better sustainable outcome, e.g. less energy, less transport, while

unable to help implement their policy throughout the project. Here is when

we come in as part of the developing team and assist developers…We can

work with financial institutions to get pre-approved loan for the

developers.”( R14)

Unlike architects and designers who only try to make cost-benefit

breakthroughs via better-integrated design, sustainability consultants also integrate

asymmetric information and knowledge from various stakeholders in order to

increase the cost-benefit ratio for stakeholders. Knowing such avenues, consultants

normally do not consider economic challenges obstructing sustainable housing

development. Consultants consider other industry stakeholders to be “reluctant to

leave their comfort zone”. However, consultants need further institutional support

Highlights of architects’/designers’ role and work process: Internalise the learning curve of sustainability due to the nature of their jobs

Deliver what the developers want in covenants, but often have limited

influence on developers’ decision-making


from government to endorse their knowledge and engage their professional work in

mainstream developments. A comprehensive code and streamlined regulation system

are believed to be effective forms of support in this regard. Compared with

professional sustainability consultants, engineers generally have less interest in

sustainability because they only get involved with the architectural schematic design

at a later stage.

5.3.1.6 Financial Institutions

Several financial institutions are able to provide “green loans” to clients once

their houses pass the NatHERS assessment. Qualified clients will be given a

favourable loan rate that is 0.5-1% lower than normal. Interviewee R17 noted that

big developers are also able to receive further discounts on their loans with the

support of government. Interviewee R4 reported experiences of having financial

institutions collaborate on the government-coordinated demonstration projects,

whereby financial institutions contribute some financial and human capital, and then

promote sales with their green loans. Additionally, interviewee R18 reported that

their financial institution works with LandCare to offset emissions by planting trees

for clients. They also carried out an “Eco Pause” program in which customers can

pause their loan repayments for up to six months in order to purchase an

environmentally sustainable item, such as a water tank or solar panel. However, if

these green labelled financial products do not receive market support, banks could

discontinue green loans at any time:

“Even though it is a good product for us to have on the shelf, it is just

another product.” (R18)

Highlights of consultants’ role and work process: Explore opportunities of collaboration among stakeholders

Explore integration of sustainable practices

Take educational roles to meet stakeholders’ needs throughout the projects

Often work with developers at an early stage of the project development


5.3.1.7 Real Estate Agencies/Consumers

Real estate agencies engage in sustainability mostly because it is mandated in

legislation, especially when solicitors request it:

“In Queensland we are required to fill out a sustainability declaration form

and present it to consumers before the sale...however, we sometimes cut

corners.” (R20)

Interviewee R19 also pointed out that housing sustainability has become a

trend in property sales, so most sales people will do their homework and include

sustainability knowledge in their daily work. R19 went on, however, to state that

these sustainable features have not been well understood and highly valued by

consumers, so real estate agents have not seen tangible benefits from promoting

housing sustainability to date. Instead, they will promote other selling points they

believe the marketplace is interested in:

“A house where my family can’t fit in does not provide comfort no matter

what sustainable feature is built in.” (R7)

5.3.2 Benefits and Risks of Key Stakeholders

Based on the different roles and types of involvement in sustainable housing

development, various stakeholders gain benefits and take risks in different ways.

Extracting common and differing patterns between individual needs and wants will

help identify the conflicting interests and potential mutual benefit paradigms.

To allow direct comparison, Table 5.8 outlines the major findings on benefits

and risks of seven key stakeholders in the implementation of sustainable housing.

The patterns that reflect the benefit commonalities and differences across key

stakeholders are presented below.

Highlights of real estate agents’ role and work process: Provide sustainability-related information to consumers

Consider sustainability as one of their many selling points

Highlights of financial institutions’ role and work process: Provide “green loans” to clients once certain sustainability requirements are met

Consider sustainability-related products as one of their many products


Table 5.8 Extracted Benefits and Risks of Key Stakeholders from Engaging in Sustainable Housing Practices

Stakeholder Benefit Risk

Government agency

Sustainable outcomes and environmental benefits

International reputation

Budget reduction in building power stations and dams

Direct revenue from sustainability-related tax

Criticism for misusing government budget on behalf of the taxpayers (e.g. under delivery of target amount of units in government funded projects by incorporating sustainability)

Criticism for making policies without scientific or technological considerations

Resistance from industry associations such as HIA or MBA to carry out mandates (e.g. higher rating standard) due to higher cost

Developer

Enhanced brand recognition, especially from having government and industry association endorsement

Premium price

Favourable land-use policy, for example putting in more units per acre

Higher upfront cost that cannot be recovered within a 12-18 month timeframe

Risk of not getting larger loans from financial institutions due to the additional cost, because financial institutions think it doesn’t add value

Risk of losing marketplace and thus competitive advantage, even though brand recognition might rise

Insufficient measurable cost-benefit data for developers to make up their mind on sustainability beyond the mandates

Builder

Enhanced brand recognition

Competitive advantage and

Risk of actual technology and product change, e.g. post-construction service and change of familiar supplier


business niche

No premium service fees for incorporating sustainable features before the cost-benefit data is clear

Potential reduction of work opportunities and income from increased property price

Small builders for individual consumers take the risk of additional building cost of sustainable practices

Architect/Designer


Higher commission due to the bigger project budget of sustainable housing

Innovative design suits their professional interest in design

Builders sometimes water down good design by architects/designers during the actual building stage

Architects/designers have to go through a big learning curve

Uncertain competitive advantage and business niche

Sustainability consultant


Potential job opportunities

Builders occasionally water down good sustainable intentions by consultants

Uncertain competitive advantage and business niche (If clients disagree with the ecologically sustainable development design, consultants might do more work for limited money, or even have “zero business” scenarios)

Consultants have to keep going through new learning curves

Financial institution Enhanced brand recognition Risk of loan payback given the uncertainty of the


marketplace

Extra efforts spent on “green” products without enough commercial return

Real estate agent


Higher commission due to the higher price of sustainable housing

Go through a big learing curve to make sure that the key messages are coming across to consumers

Uncertain selling points on sustainable technologies

Consumer

Savings on energy costs (the energy usage is reduced about 20% from a 5-star to a 6-start house)

Higher rent and premium resale price

Better health and comfortable living environment from features such as steady indoor temperature and better ventilation

Consumers might feel it is hard to pay off the extra investment cost, particularly when developers are taking advantage of the green movement and “green washing” their properties


Direct Benefits of Governments and Consumers

In general, government agencies and consumers perceive more benefits than

risks than other stakeholders do in the involvement of sustainable housing. The direct

benefits of sustainable practices in environmental, economic and social dimensions

drive the housing industry from both ends. This reinforces the finding of Kendall’s

W test in the questionnaire survey and highlights the prominence of government and

consumer stakeholders in driving sustainable housing development.

Widespread Brand Recognition

Industry practitioners all consider “brand recognition” as a major benefit of

sustainability. This finding is in line with Shin’s argument that the pioneering motive

of “being part of an industry that values the environment” is still the major reason for

the housing industry to make sustainable moves (Shin et at, 2008).

Contested Competitive Advantage

To date in Australia, brand recognition from engaging in sustainable practices

has not always translated into competitive advantage. The research by Zhang (2011)

on China housing industry supported this viewpoint. Industry practitioners have to

constantly watch the market trends to decide if they should “go sustainable”, because

sustainable practices could be a double-edged sword that results in both the rise and

fall in market share. For those whose work is based on fixed design fees or

commissions, such as builders, architects/designers and consultants, having a

sustainable side can enhance their competitive advantage to a certain extent.

However, the same cannot be seen in developers or those particular builders with the

investing nature of the profession. They are more sensitive to capital returns and are

engaged in a housing development from the planning stage to post-sale stage:

“We did it and we’re the ones that realised well though it increased our

brand, and you can’t sort of put a price on that, brand recognition.

Competitive advantage no. But we’re the ones spending the money finding

this out.”(R7)

Inadequate Cost-Benefit Data

A recurring comment from developers, builders, financial institutions and real

estate agents was the blurred cost-benefit data. Governments are subjected to the

criticism of making sustainability-related policies without providing enough broad

explanation of associated benefits. Not until this fundamental issue is solved will the


Australian housing market voluntarily acquire knowledge and information of

sustainable practices and drive them into mainstream. Additionally, the lack of cost-

benefit data deteriorates the relation between the supply side and consumers when

the latter was charged a premium cost for the claimed functionality:

“Developers are producing for more money because it’s green, but there’s

nothing measurable here to let them know whether that’s the case or not.”

(R11)

Learning Curve and Innovation Diffusion

It is interesting to find those who seek better cost-benefit data (developer,

builders, financial institutions and real estate agents) tend to encounter a bigger

learning curve, while architects and consultants are inclined to internalise the

sustainability learning curve. This seems to imply that voluntary professional

education often ends up translating to better understanding of the potential costs and

benefits. According to the innovation diffusion model by Rogers (1995), diffusion is

the interplay of a set of heterogeneous individuals, differing in terms of their

financial background, social status, knowledge and openness to change. Architects,

designers and sustainability consultants fit the profile of “early adopters” who are

normally a source of advice and information and who act as role models. They play

important roles in diffusing their knowledge to the “early and late majority” who

often hesitate to participate in the innovation decision process even they have

received information from others. However, the current lack of solid cost-benefit

data calls for strong input from the “innovator” who can easily create and embrace

new ideas based on their financial situation and technological skills. In the case of

sustainable housing development, many interviewees suggested that government

directly benefits from environmental outcomes and should take on the role of

innovator by collaborating with scientific organisations and industry professional

associations.

Market Risk of Builders and Developers

The risk from engaging in sustainable practices is reported unevenly among the

different stakeholders. Despite the advantages of sustainable practices in the design

work of architects and consultants, builders take the actual technical risk of

translating theories to reality:


“Builders have to fix it if any new product goes wrong within a few years.”

(R9)

“.A big issue for builders is they have trusted networks of contractors and

suppliers. To do something new and sustainable, they often perceive risk of

construction delays or extra workload, so they will often put a price

penalty.” (R14)

It is the builder who has to fix it if any new product goes wrong after sale.

Additionally, builders face the risk of leaving their trusted networks of contractors

and suppliers for new “sustainable” supply chain partners. As a result, builders often

hinder the implementation of sustainable design from their upstream architects or

consultants. Koebel (2008) also found that the builders make key decisions about

housing innovations by actively balancing the characteristics of supply against

market demand. This explains the questionnaire finding that extra incentives are

needed to mitigate builders’ technical risk. Developers do not share the same risk as

builders in that they have to worry about turning newly mandated elements into

selling points:

“Developers take the risk of not getting the money they normally get because

financial institutions think it doesn’t value up. A valuer from a financial

institution will not give you any more if your house is even a smart house.”

(R7)

The interviewees believe that both developers and builders will need further

rewards to translate increased reputation to competitive advantage at the early stage

of sustainable housing development.

Limited Stimulus for Financial Institutions and Real Estate Agents

Financial institutions and real estate agents were found to have less at stake in

sustainable housing development. They are not directly affected by strong top-down

pressure from regulations. The nature of their work, namely to sell a variety of

products (loans and properties), also determines that sustainability-related products

only attracted limited attention and efforts. Interviewees pointed out, however, that

these two stakeholder groups should play more important roles to expedite the capital

flow into the housing market once sound policies are put in place to stimulate their

interests. Particularly, the current appraisal system of sustainable housing should be

acted upon through collaboration between governments and the financial institutions.


This viewpoint is supported by previous research by McCuen (2007) and Bugl et al

(2009).

5.3.3 Current Status, Problems and Strategies of CABs

Furthering the understanding of the individual roles, benefits and risk of key

stakeholders, the interview study went on to investigate the potential new paradigms

of stakeholder mutual benefits. Such multi-dimensional paradigms are closely related

to understanding and finding solutions to CABs in the examined multi-stakeholder

context. The identification of critical factors of achieving mutual benefits (CFAMBs)

will not be comprehensive without linking CAB significance, status to stakeholder

diversity. For the qualitative content analysis, an adaptation of the OECD’s Pressure-

State-Response (PSR) model (2003) was employed as a framework to evaluate the

CAB significance and status (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development, 2001). The elements of the model are described in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1. Pressure-State-Response model

The PSR framework, or modified versions of it, has been used across the globe

as a reporting tool on environmental policies (Woodhead et al., 2009). It is

considered as one of the easiest frameworks to understand and evaluate

environmental indicators, which, as this research shows, are various challenges to

achieving benefits. The logical linkage between the three elements will incrementally

reveal the status of current implementation of each CAB, underlining reasons for the

status quo, and possible solutions for implementing sustainable housing with mutual

benefits. This framework also allows flexibility of the analysis according to the

specific finding of each CAB. For example, those CABs found with minor pressure

do not need further examination of “response”. The end product of this section is the

Pressure Environmental, social, economic or institutional needs of acting upon each factor in promoting sustainable housing

Response Better practices to address the problems towards mutual benefits

State Current problems and practices that are contributing to these pressures


hierarchical significance (significance based on interrelationship) of each CAB. The

results of the 19 CABs are presented in the following order:

Technical and Design Challenges

1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials (T1)

2. Lack of professional education and training programs for industry (T2)

3. Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently define and measure

sustainability (T3)

4. Lack of integrated design for life-cycle management (T4)

5. Insufficient cost-benefit data from interdisciplinary research (T5)

Economic Challenges

6. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change (E1)

7. High investment cost (E2)

8. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment advantages (E3)

Socio-Cultural Challenges

9. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and changing traditional practices

(S1)

10. Insufficient reputation increase, brand recognition and competitive

advantage (S2)

11. Lack of social conscience regarding climate change and natural

resource preservation (S3)

12. Insufficient demand-side education from media and other channels (S4)

13. Contested functionality for end users (S5)

Institutional Challenges

14. Lack of collaborative integration (I1)

15. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks (I2)

16. Inadequate policing of green washing and unsustainable practices (I3)

17. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and

policymaking (I4)

18. Lack of comprehensive code or policy package to guide action (I5)

19. Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/legislation (I6)

5.3.3.1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials (T1)

Finding #1: Pressure


Interviewees commonly perceived that the sustainable technologies and

materials are available to meet the government regulations on energy efficiency, with

a modest amount of extra financial outlay:

“I think the technical stuff is sitting there waiting. For a social housing

project we are doing, it takes an estimate of only 2.5% additional costs to go

to 6-star. However, the energy usage from 5 to 6-star is about 20%-odd

reduction, so every household will save about $300 a year by virtue of

having that additional star rating. Sustainability is able to pay off the extra

cost.” (R3)

This is reflected in the overall 19th ranking among all CABs from the

questionnaire survey finding. However, designers still struggled to get eight stars

before renewable considerations come into play. This highlights the importance of

T1 as a fundamental intellectual property to add value to the supply chain and reduce

the price of cutting-edge sustainable practices. Breakthroughs on T1 might

fundamentally change the way the housing industry does business and bring

sustainable housing beyond energy-efficient regulations towards a voluntary uptake.

Finding #2: State

One noteworthy barrier is the implementation and integration of available

technologies. In particular, builders are believed to encounter the biggest problem

during the actual building process when applying those integrated design and

technologies:

“It’s like putting IKEA furniture together. You get the instructions, you get

the little key and it can be very frustrating putting it together.” (R15)

Most interviewees also raised concerns about incorporating suitable

technologies to fit specific local climates:

“New York has got snow in the winter, so the city has been built around

heating for the winter. You wouldn’t do that here in Queensland, because it

is about reducing air temperature.” (R1)

Finding #3: Response

Comments regarding T1 tend to centre around the partnerships among

government, the industry and scientific community in demonstrating cost-benefits.

Strategies are summarised as follows:


Government could support technologies to come to the market through

incentives.

Consistent legislation will help clarify the future trends in this sector.

Manufacturers thus will be more confident to invest in sustainable

production capacity. Mainstream suppliers would be more likely to

become involved and this, in turn, would bring down the development

cost.

Government should facilitate sustainable housing as the coordinator

between industry and the scientific community.

Government could prescribe sustainable practices on government-owned

land and public housing, as it does not need to source the funding to do

that or release the development to private developers.

Builders need to get additional incentives from governments or developers

for taking the risks of implementing new technologies. In addition, more

training should be provided to builders for up-scaling, such as building

information modelling or constructability modelling.

5.3.3.2. Lack of professional education and training programs for industry (T2)


Although there are various education programs that align industry practitioners

with government regulations, more re-education is needed to make industry members

behave in slightly different ways and push sustainable practices beyond regulation:

“This is like a chick and an egg. If we train people properly and, for

example, these mainstream suppliers see an opportunity to sell more or

make more money, then the centralised systems can respond.” (R14)

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of T1 While current technologies and design are adequate to meet current

legislative requirements, T1 remains a critical factor for breakthroughs

in sustainable practices in the long run

Contributing to higher cost-benefit ratio (T5), accurate measurement

of sustainability (T3) and leading to economies of scale


Finding #2: State

Many interviewees noted that information overload and disorder has been a

major obstruction to professional education:

“There is actually a disconnection between key stakeholder’s base

understanding of sustainability, although they all talk the same language.

For example, builders’ requirements in education would be more technical

whereas clients need more of features and benefits rather than technical

details.” (R15)

Moreover, the education program by government or industry associations only

enable industry practitioners to understand what mandates mean. More training is

needed going beyond that so stakeholders do not have to go by rule of thumb, which

does not give designers or builders specific outcomes of a sustainable measure that

are measurable before they actually install it. Finally, the project-based nature of

stakeholder collaboration undermines the continuity of knowledge diffusion.


While it is necessary to provide training to prevent the media from

disseminating misleading information, it is more important to show industry

practitioners where they can find better knowledge and information. Several

interviewees placed considerable emphasis on the concept of a knowledge hub that

would allow direct comparisons among different technologies and products in cost

and benefits based on inter-disciplinary research. As one interviewee described, this

knowledge hub could take the form of a website:

“At the moment there’s all sustainability information but it’s all fragmented.

The government would probably be better advised to spend their money on

developing like a super website that gave you all the information everyone

wanted. That will be a great market driven tool but it’s through education.

ECO SPECIFIER is probably the best there is at the moment.” (R15)

In addition, government, through the departments of education or the Urban

Land Development Authority, should collaborate with industry associations (e.g.

HIA, MBA, AIA, and Queensland Property Associates) or universities and colleges

to provide education programs beyond regulation. Particular education should be

targeting builders and real estate agents, as they are the ones who deliver face-to-face

education to the clients. This will ensure the key messages are coming through to the


demand side. One interviewee further emphasised the importance of a two-way

communication in education, with questions and feedback expediting the learning

process.

5.3.3.3. Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently define and measure sustainability (T3)


A comprehensive methodology to measure sustainability does not only provide

legislative authority to the current rating tools, but also assists the education process

and leads the market demand. Interviewees recognised that the Australian housing

industry does not lack rating tools. For example, nationwide there are Green Star

residential rating by the GBCA, NABERS by the New South Wales Government,

First Rate by Sustainability Victoria, and AccuRate by the CSIRO. However, the

implementation of rating measures should be able to manifest tangible benefits. In

this regard, a credible rating system for sustainable housing is still missing:

“The rating tool is not as important as the people’s understanding of what

the rating tool is trying to do. It should be a customer driven thing and the

rating tool merely let you know how you’re performing.” (R6)

Finding #2: State

When it comes to sustainability policies, regulators tend to try to focus on the

minimum requirement rather than better results (Williams & Dair, 2007). Therefore,

the current rating system was carried out with a strong simplistic concentration on

energy efficiency and water usage. Industry practitioners wrongly care about the star

more than its actual value, because they want the cheapest and quickest approval:

“As a designer, I end up designing a sealed box to live in because that

complies with the energy rating, but gosh, it’s not a particularly pleasant

environment to be in.”(R11)

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of T2 Re-education is critical to change behaviour

Based on sound cost-benefit data (T5)

Driving the advances of sustainable technologies and design (T1,T4)

Influencing public awareness (S4)


On the other hand, some innovative products that could make a difference such

as solar paint are struggling to get a star rating. As a result, industry practitioners

have lost faith in the performance of rating tools. One architect claimed that they

understand all about energy efficiency, but would rather get by with a “deemed to

satisfy provisions” rule.

Additionally, the existence of superfluous rating tools tends to give the supply

side an easy way out in meeting the minimal requirement. Consumers will also

become confused about why they are striving to get a six-star energy rated house

rather than a three-star rated house, and will resist gearing up to the voluntary uptake

of sustainable housing in the long run:

“Consumers are not well aware of the concept of five or six star house,

because they can barely measure it from their feelings. The criteria are all

written rules by government.” (R20)


Several interviewees supported a comprehensive rating system designed to

reflect practical benefits, particularly for homebuyers. Firstly, a consistent national

rating tool system is needed. It would be better to bring current rating systems

together so there is one approach for all, with considerations of regional climate. This

requires one authority to take the lead. One interviewee, for example, recommended

the Green Building Council of Australia for this role. Government could facilitate the

GBCA to integrate the available assessment tools and make one tool available for all.

Additionally, comprehensible language for both the supply and demand sides

needs to be adopted in the national rating tool. Interviewees argued that some

industry jargon such as “carbon tax” is probably good for motivating industry action,

but is a barrier to communicating with consumers. For example, the carbon-counting

system is hard to understand, and highly dependent upon behaviour. Sustainability is

much broader in that it is about quality of life, healthiness, comfort, the active

lifestyle for consumers, and the technical concepts, and economic return for the

industry and government. Therefore, the language used to benchmark sustainability

needs to be able to tell people how good that particular house is to build and live in.

To this end, further applied research is needed to manifest the tangible cost-benefit

outcome, through the alliance among government, universities and the CSIRO and

the housing industry. Eventually, there should be a consistent language used to


bridge the supply-side agenda and the market demand. According to one interviewee,

the development of this consistent knowledge was inevitable:

“Stakeholders from the demand side and supply side will eventually come up

with the same answer on a given design or technology, just like how people

start to link calories to body fat and cholesterol.” (R20)

Based on the solid cost-benefit data, consumers will have the flexibility to

choose their own level of sustainability based on what they can afford within a range

of ratings. For example, if a house cannot get a star in one aspect, it might be able to

get an additional two stars in another aspect. This will rationalise the rigor of rating

tools and attract larger market uptake. In addition, builder, certifier and designer

licences and even financial institutions’ loan programs should be aligned with the

rating tool, so the industry can regulate itself.

5.3.3.4. Lack of integrated design for life-cycle management (T4)


Most interviewees reinforced the significance of “integration” and “life-cycle

cost”, and considered it to be a missing cornerstone of sustainable advancement.

However, the current standstill was attributed to the belief that developers and

builders tend to undervalue the importance of this challenge:

“Builders and developers don’t tend to think about lifecycle management. In

terms of design, builders are just interested in putting something up now

rather than thinking ahead to how to reuse it or change the use of that

building or whatever. It’s just about meeting the clients’ wishes, I suppose.”

(R5)

Finding #2: State

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of T3 The Australian housing industry does not lack rating tools, but the

consistency and accuracy needs to be further addressed

Built on sound cost-benefit data (T5) and effective enforcement of

policies (I4, I6)

Foster public awareness (S4) and increase market scale


Developers and builders prioritise temporary economic returns because they

need to relieve the pressure of initial costs and the uncertain marketplace. For

example, lacking a long term consideration of the benefits of good design and

sustainability, developers normally measure their housing blocks to get higher

density and consumer convenience without too much thought about environmentally

sensitive orientations:

“If the developers or the surveyors can carve their blocks with the long side

facing north that would do an enormous amount for good design and

sustainability. They probably won’t get the most blocks with the least road

though.” (R10)

In addition, consumers prefer to purchase large homes for the sake of the resale

without thinking about the functionality. All these short-sighted profit-driven

practices set barriers for better-integrated design.


Similar to sustainable technologies and materials, the improvement of

integrated design and life-cycle thinking lies largely in better education of the supply

side as well as the escalated market scale over time. Additionally, since integration is

not so much at an individual house level but at a sub-division level, it depends on

developers rather than individual builders to consider integration at the community

level as soon as they have a field to develop. Developers could work more closely

with the town planners from the local government to look at how a community

operates in the longer term. For instance, developers can plan using photovoltaic

cells within a community so that the community generates and stores its own power.

5.3.3.5. Insufficient cost-benefit data from interdisciplinary research (T5)


Poor understanding of cost-benefit data on available design and technologies

was a top concern of many interviewees, particularly the upstream stakeholders such

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of T4 A core challenge to the advance of sustainable practices

Contributing to higher cost-benefit ratio (T5), accurate measurement

of sustainability (T3) and leading to economies of scale


as government agency personnel, developers, builders and architects. This relates to

how sustainable housing solves the “who pays for what, and when” puzzle, and

potentially leads stakeholders to a market-driven cycle. Additionally, solid cost-

benefit data will help tackle educational challenges (T2 and S4) and lay the

foundation for the rating tools (T3):

“If you invest in sustainability measures you should receive benefits, user

pays if you don't.” (R6)

Without this defining component of sustainability, major industry practitioners

will see sustainability as a cost rather than a profit opportunity in most cases. They

would expect end users to pay more for sustainable practices before they take the

initiative. On the other hand, end users will only pay more only when they see

measurable benefits in what they are paying for. However, it is difficult to get

information about the quantifiable benefits of putting in a particular sustainable

measure from the current rating systems. It is therefore very difficult for the supply

side to prove what they say is important.

Finding #2: State

Interviewees believed that rating tools should go in parallel with cost-benefit

data, in order to facilitate stakeholders’ decision-making beyond legislation. For

example, developers and investors will seek to avoid the risk from solar cooling and

heating systems even such systems are available, because architects and designers

cannot tell them for sure about the initial cost, life-cycle cost and savings, or payback

time:

“It’s very confusing for builders or designers to know where to look for

measurable data. So we’re making this up for a client as we go along, it’s all

rule of thumb unfortunately.” (R8)

Unlike products with shorter life spans, an unavoidable fact with the housing

and sustainable product is the long tracking period. Industry normally would not be

able to provide reliable data within a couple of years, which is obstacle of immediate

market return.


Interviewees suggested that establishing a credible cost-benefit database would

involve two steps: proving the benefits from the supply side, and then


communicating it with demand side. Both steps entail a viewpoint of continual

development to cater for the life-cycle of residential buildings.

On the supply side, scientific institutions, government and industry should

form a research alliance to test the functionality of sustainable products in real life.

One interview described this as follows:

“So there needs to be a scientific organisation, so it’s probably government

or government allied that can put out notes on this is how you go about

doing it. Or even universities allied with government perhaps.” (R11)

Another interviewee also suggested that being government-allied would be

beneficial. All too often the lack of funding fails the attempt to gather longitudinal

data from demonstration projects. This could be relieved by the allocation of

government funding. Government is also a good candidate due to its ability to use

political power to coordinate multiple parties:

“Government agencies could work with CSIRO and get their scientists an

opportunity with us to get out of the laboratory, and put some pilot things on

the ground. Corporate money will not come in when there’s pure research

but no proven commerciality. Therefore, that earlier phase needs a role that

government provide funding and collaborate with CSIRO and other

universities” (R4)

Additionally, to record and communicate the tracked data, an integrated

knowledge hub is needed to provide both industry and consumers with concrete cost-

benefit data in detail. This is in contrast with prior patchy and fragmented

interactions with sustainable practices experienced by designers and occupants. The

proposed knowledge hub should be accessible online to show the comparative data

between different sustainable housing and conventional housing in terms of initial

cost and operating cost:

“If we start measuring cost-benefit ratio now, in 20 years’ time someone

does not have the same dilemma we have now. Just like Medicare started

tracking longitudinal depth in the data years ago, and now we have reliable

source to refer to.” (R4)

Interviewees also placed emphasis on the need for a consumer-friendly

measuring tool as part of any sustainability rating system.


“It could take the form of a device that measures a consumer’s indoor

comfort with a few indicators, such as ventilation condition or temperature

under a fixated circumstance.” (R20)

Smart metres and responsive circuitry have been considered good examples to

help consumers demand energy management within homes, and thus gradually

change their lifestyle. However, these devices are currently absent in the mainstream

market due to the high cost (up to six or seven thousand dollars). Again, this is where

government could work with the community by investing in public infrastructure.

Regarding those sustainable features that are not currently easy to quantify, one

interviewee suggested a somatic communication could be used to introduce a concept

through pictorial or symbolic methods. This approach was proven to be effective in

automobile industry where consumers are more adapted to the ‘green concept’ (Coad

et al., 2009). In fact, certain scientifically-based systems in Australia like

EnviroDevelopment (2011) have been engaged in developing those symbols but

further work is needed on more sustainability-centred terms with consumer-friendly

language. The interviewee described the symbols as follows:

“Each symbol potentially triggers a particular thought on one of the too

many dimensions of sustainability. For example, a house could be asthma

friendly, renewable friendly, energy friendly, nature biodiversity friendly.”

(R16)

Finally, the mandatory energy disclosure at time of resale should be pushed to

the mainstream as evidence that a sustainable house will be economical to run.

Lifetime energy bills of the house since the last purchase should also be shown. This

information will enhance the resale value of a more sustainable property and

encourage homebuyers to invest the money upfront in sustainable features.

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of T5 Fundamental factor for sustainable housing development

Paving the way for educational factors (T2, S4), rating tools (T3)

Requiring government alliance, particularly financially (E3), in

building a scientific research mechanism


5.3.3.6. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change (E1)


Interviewees supported the questionnaire finding that E1 remains a noteworthy

challenge for all the key stakeholders because of its significance to its broad

connotation in covering other challenges such as rating tools (T3), incentive

mechanism (E3), cost-benefit ratio (T5) and market demand. Under the current

changing policy environment, industry practitioners inadvertently have to question

the extent to which the government will push regulation or which area of

sustainability the government will focus on. However, interviewees reached a

consensus on the government’s determination to transform the housing market

towards an environmentally-friendly yet affordable blueprint:

“Nationwide, residential buildings have come a long way from 3-star rating

to 6-star rating over the past 10 years, and stakeholders always managed to

adapt to the new standard. Rules change, but game goes on.” (R10)

Having addressed the doubts about legislation and market trends, tackling the

E1 is not an essential challenges itself, and should be left to the matter of when and

how the housing industry can achieve the equilibrium, or mutual benefit, between

private profits and sustainable practice. One developer contended that mandates are

definitely able to yield improved mutual benefits. However, further cost-benefit data

(T5) will be needed for stakeholders to take immediate and voluntary action.

5.3.3.7. High investment cost (E2)


Interviewees perceive a 2.5-10% extra cost on sustainable housing depending

on what level of sustainability is targeted. Before this factual cost figure gradually

reduces to what the market would widely accept, high investment costs would remain

the decisive challenge in achieving benefits for government, industry practitioners

and consumers. As one of the interviewees summed up:

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of E1 Future policy and market trend in Australia has appeared clear

towards housing sustainability

Not an essential CAB itself, , but its broad connotation covers other

critical CABs and determines the ultimate debate of mutual benefits


“If housing is to be sustainable economically, it’s got to be affordable.”

(R12)

Finding #2: State

The fundamental issue experienced by interviewees is that key stakeholders

want to shift costs to other players in the process so they gain maximum advantage.

Developers take the risk of not getting a loan at all when financial institutions think

the sustainable practices do not add up to the high upfront cost; they therefore over-

compensate the risk by engaging in the so-called “green washing”. This was

described as follows by an interviewee:

“ULDA might let you more units per acre for a sustainable housing, so

developer’s land cost is being amortised across more units so you get a

better uplift. But again, what a lot of the developers are doing is pocketing

that as profit, then not bringing down to affordability.” (R12)

Underlying the approach of business-people is the belief that the more risk you

take, the more profits you should get. For builders or designers who integrate

sustainable elements in building process, they learn by longitudinal experiences and

therefore have to go through a bigger learning curve. Before their knowledge reaches

maturity, they might incorporate inefficient sustainable features with premium cost.

This failure in manifesting cost-benefit will become an outcome that no practitioner

wants to risk.

Additionally, as one interviewee pointed out, those who benefit from vested

interests such as coal and oil energy companies lead the industry to focus on the cost

rather than the value or payback. It is evident that the costs might be higher upfront,

but if those extra costs are paid back in only a few years then it represents significant

benefits for consumers who struggle to make a decision.


There was a wide variation of responses to the issue of how to alleviate the cost

pressure on sustainable housing. These responses can be categorised into the

following three clusters:

Government-initiated strategies


Well-integrated design and advanced technologies will ultimately

contribute to the price drop and in turn increase market demand. Strong

market demand will bring in more investment in R&D and the consequent

economies of scale with lower cost. Responses regarding this challenge

indicated the urgency to establish a government-allied scientific

institution.

Government could provide fiscal or other kinds of favourable policies to

stimulate sustainable investment or development (discussed in more detail

in relation to E3 strategies below).

Government and the major electricity providers should work together on

demand management to cut peak energy. Savings in government budgets

from infrastructure construction could be reallocated to investment in

sustainability.

Developer-initiated strategies

Developers should cultivate a vision to remunerate their designers and

builders based on a percentage share of the savings they contribute to a

project, rather than a percentage of the total value. This approach could be

a straightforward way for developers, designers and consultants to foresee

and pre-collect their benefits from innovative sustainable technologies,

design and materials over housing’s lifecycle. However, initial cost uplift

on the sustainable measures should be considered into the long-term cost-

benefit ratio for which designers are rewarded. Toyota, for example, works

this way with its supply chain to drive innovation through shared

profitability.

Developers should work with sales personnel to do better marketing. For

example, they can start by targeting certain segments with strong

sustainability appeal, such as retirement villages where developers also act

as the building operator. This market strategy was largely used in

commercial building, for example government office, and was proved

effective by Rashid et al (2011). Recent experiences from U.S. also

indicate that low-income owner households could be focused on the

agenda of sustainable housing development via collaboration with policy


makers (Sullivan & Ward, 2012). In addition, developers should

incorporate sustainability as a built-in design, so as to avoid consumers’

psychological resistance to added price. Sales personnel could be trained

to highlight the enhanced functionality.

Developers should seek collaboration with material suppliers to gain price

advantages.

Other strategies

Consultants could interact with government and electrical companies to

prove that smarter design or innovative technology can create profits.

Financial institutions and insurance providers could provide lower loan

rates or premiums for sustainable housing projects. For housing not

meeting the sustainability threshold, they could charge a premium fee or

even discontinue their service. Such approaches were advocated by recent

research finding by Lützkendorf & Habil (2011) in order to brake the

vicious circle of blame in sustainable built environment. This, however,

would need to be based on political and financial support from local

government.

5.3.3.8. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment advantages (E3)


E3 reveals the serious concerns of those who take direct regulatory risk, such

as developers, builders and homebuyers. Most interviewees felt that this challenge

could potentially foster technical and design R&D, the establishment of a cost-

benefit database and short-term behaviour change.

Finding #2: State

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of E2 Top challenge due to the nature of business for profit, and current advance of


Driven by advances in technology and design (T1, T4), incentives (E3)

Closely associated with green washing (I3) and influences market demand


Although various incentives are seen at different administrative levels in the

Australian housing industry, governments often take the blame for failing to provide

programs consistently, accurately and sufficiently. Firstly, government could lose

control of the rebate system. As one interviewee noted:

“The Federal Government said that they would help insulate roofs. None of

that went to new housing, that was old housing, so if you were buying a new

house you had to pay for it. But if you had a house next door and you didn’t

have any insulation in there the government paid for it. How fair is that”

(R7)

In addition, unqualified professionals take advantage of the loose policy to

make money, so consumers pay for poorly installed water tanks or equipment that

they do not need. Moreover, governments are not investing enough money back into

sustainability with the funds collected from environmental taxes or from budget

savings due to environmental benefits. One interview made a suggestion for how

government could use these savings:

“Government might use carbon tax to reduce our deficit rather than

investing in sustainability” (R2)

Developers also are believed to be failing to reward the supply chain as the

leading stakeholders who brief the designers, onsite builders and other consultants.

Until these professionals gain the confidence that their intellectual property will be

rewarded by either governments or developers, their willingness to exert efforts on

value-adding innovations will remain low.


Interviewees made suggestions about governments and developers establishing

a systematic incentive system as follows:

Government should consider tax deductions on sustainable housing instead

of rebates:

“Look I can’t speak for other governments but the way things seem to

happen in Australia is, we’re having a carbon tax and then governments get

all that money and then they compensate people for having to pay the higher

price, which is really just accelerating the money circulation that caused

inflation… Whereas tax cuts an easy solution for a government, you don’t

need to be administered by anyone but the tax department is there


anyway…If renewable energy is now a big tax cut, either zero or twenty

precent…people will start switching over into that area like crazy and then

passing on the cheaper costs.” (R8)

Local government could approve sustainable housing developments in a

relatively shorter time span:

“It means the per cent interest on the land cost that developers have to

amortise will be reduced.” (R12)

Local council might endorse more units per acre for a sustainable housing

project, so the developer’s land cost is being amortised across more units

for their profit.

Government should establish a public funding system with government

funds or through collaborating with a financial institution. Consumers

could receive loans for sustainability features that would be repaid from

their savings of operating rates:

“The funding should not go directly to the developer. It should go to an

expertise group, like the urban development school at QUT, so they can

facilitate developers with best practice, practical work, and fostering the

relationship.” (R16)

Incentives should be given straight back to the upper supply chain such as

the manufacturers and builders, so the benefits could be passed down.

Client should receive rewards from government for the level of star rating

(e.g. a range between 4 to 6 stars) they choose to apply to their house.

The political approach should remain the “stick” policy. They could also

introduce changes to the regulations, so that the larger the house is, the

disproportionately higher the stamp duty will be.

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of E3 A powerful driving tool that links government revenue to the housing

industry

Relying on effective regulations (I4, I6)

Foster R&D (T1, T4 and T5)


5.3.3.9. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and changing traditional practices (S1)


Interviewees indicated that this challenge is not an essential tackle towards

stakeholder mutual benefits, considering energy-efficiency as an explicit indicator of

sustainability has been mandated in the building code. Stakeholders have begun to

accept the fact that transformation is occurring regardless of individual will.

Consequently, they have learnt to objectively list the “pros and cons” and to develop

strategies to adapt to the change. However, stakeholders might struggle to implement

their intended strategies. Frustration will continue to emerge and the innovation

process will be dragged backwards before the mutual benefits of sustainable

practices and business for profit are achieved. According to one interviewee:

“Everyone wants to be green until it comes to paying for it.” (R10)

Therefore, it appears that S1 will solve itself when a completely new mutual

benefit paradigm is established.

5.3.3.10. Insufficient reputation increase, brand recognition and competitive advantage (S2)


Interviewees believed that sustainable housing has a well-established brand

reputation and is a market niche for mainstream developers, builders, architects and

financial institutions that choose to take advantage of the sustainability campaign.

The current situation largely results from the mandatory star ratings on energy

efficiency since 2003. This result echoes the questionnaire finding that S2 is only

ranked 18th among the 19 CABs in terms of significance. Interviewees referred to

this situation as follows:

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of S1 S1 is not an essential challenge to tackle. The widely adopted mandate of

energy efficiency has driven the awareness campaign to a point where most

people will change for “sustainability” if initial cost is not an obstacle.


“Industry companies have chosen to take advantage of the green movement

and it gives them the ability to position themselves in a niche business to

deliver on that.” (R5)

“The benefits with regards to reputation, corporate social responsibility

have been proved.” (R6)

One concern for developers and builders is that certain high-end sustainable

housing does bring in brand recognition but that there will not be competitive

advantage and sales performance before the market is ready. Developers and builders

take the risk of losing market share if they go too far ahead of the mainstream trends.

However, experts suggest that this situation would change automatically once the

solid cost-benefit is provided. In general, S2 is considered to be an obsolete

challenge that causes minor hindrance to the realisation of stakeholder benefits.

5.3.3.11. Lack of social conscience regarding climate change and natural resource preservation (S3)


Interviewees generally believe the Australian public has already become

acquainted with the impact of climate change and the necessity of preserving limited

natural resources:

“If there’s no extra cost but you can insulate your house and that will reduce

our carbon footprint, everyone would want it, regardless whether it saved

them any power.” (R7)

Interview R7 also noted that social conscience will always be secondary to the

fulfilment of basic needs: food, clothes and shelter. Therefore, before affordability is

achieved through well-orchestrated design, individuals will hesitate to give up the

satisfaction of their own needs for the environmental good. In fact, a recent review

by Vallance et al (2011) defined such needs of human beings within the dimension of

social sustainability, and should be equally prioritised with environmental issues and

economic growth.

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of S2 S2 a less important factor that affects stakeholder benefits, due to the

well-established reputation and brand recognition


5.3.3.12. Insufficient demand-side education from media and other channels (S4)


The interview study found that the significance of S4 identified from the

questionnaire (14th overall) is relatively undervalued. Consumer education does not

only determine the pre-purchase market demand but also the sustainable outcome in

the occupying phase. This viewpoint was supported by recent research by Pilkington

et.al (2011). Admittedly, with the increasing information overload in this ICT era,

media coverage on sustainability-related technologies and benefits is no longer

lacking. Interviewees pointed out, however, that scientific details and consistency of

the information are missing. In fact, the housing industry should use this

unprecedented opportunity of ICT access to educate and communicate the value of

sustainable housing to the demand side stakeholders. Further work is still needed to

create the awareness that not all homes are equal and to demonstrate how exactly the

functionality of sustainable housing will be different.

Finding #2: State

Even though consumers could obtain information from developers and

builders, this information appears to be fragmented. Additionally, without an

individual source to refer to and cross-reference, consumers will constantly question

if the knowledge they receive is authoritative. The media is also accused of being

superficial for only being interested in controversy rather than in the success stories

of sustainable practices, and this focus leads to the dissemination of confusing

advice.

Although different levels of government have carried education programs for

the public, one interviewee pointed out that these programs cannot be delivered on a

large scale:

“Not so many people are interested in housing-related education unless they

are looking to buy a property, but not so many people are buying houses at

the same time.” (R20)

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of S3 S3 is a less important challenge to date due to the improved Social

conscious


In fact, the most direct approach to communicating with consumers is the

energy efficiency rating, but all too often the rating tool neither provides a consumer-

friendly language nor displays concrete benefit facts.


Comments regarding strategies to counter S4 pointed to the need for an online

knowledge hub for consumers:

“The science and the maths behind it might be quite complicated, but it’s as

simple as saying if you buy a house with these kind of facilities, you will

reduce your energy by 10%. Given your average energy cost is this, this is

how much you save a year and in ten years.” (R4)

Dialogue should also be reinforced between consumers and the multiple

stakeholders in the housing industry. This viewpoint was evidenced by the following

recommendations from interviewees:

Government could issue the first time homebuyer grant only after potential

homebuyers undertake training on the functionality of a sustainable home,

and how to properly use sustainable features to their advantage:

“It’s not just buy a house, stick it on the ground and then suddenly you’ll be

more sustainable. It’s buy a house, learn how to operate the house and then

operate that house effectively. Consumer’s behaviour should be educated

and influenced.” (R14)

Government should continue programs that send technical staff to

consumers’ homes to educate homeowners on how to operate sustainable

facilities.

Architects or builders could educate customers or clients about new

products and technologies.

Financial institutions could create awareness by providing lower interest

rates for housing with a certain level of sustainability.

Real estate agents need to catch up with the learning curve so they could

speak to consumers intelligently and knowledgably about sustainable

design and the relevant benefits.


5.3.3.13. Contested functionality for end users (S5)


In general, interviewees believe this functionality challenge is not an essential

challenge for sustainable housing development and stakeholder benefits.

Improvements in health and the stability of indoor temperatures in a sustainable

house have been proved. One interviewee suggested the maintenance inconvenience

of solar panels, but added that the effect is marginal. Another concern about

sustainable housing has been that sustainable homes tend to have a “hippy” and

unfinished look to the building. However, interviewees widely believed that

contemporary sustainable housing can look normal, unless the clients’ pursue

uniqueness to reflect their green mindset. It is not necessary for the building to look

unusual. Instead, sustainability could become an aesthetic style to match customers’

personality and drive the uptake:

“It’s just that that was the aesthetics that they wanted, they wanted it to look

different, like an IPHONE version for a house.” (R10)

However, the level of functionality varies depending on how much consumers

are prepared to pay for it. In addition, certain functional aspects of sustainable

technologies are still controversial. For example, one interviewee pointed out that, in

the tropics, homeowners want natural ventilation and that brings with it two issues:

noise and dust. This scenario comes back to the solution to technical CABs, and calls

for the advancement of technologies and research in quantifiable cost-benefit data.

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of S5 S5 is a less important challenge due to the proven functionality

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of S4 More scientific details are needed in the education and information

dissemination to drive the behaviour change

The Internet will play an unprecedented role in driving sustainable housing into the mainstream

Driving market demand and prevent green washing (I3)

Built on reliable cost-benefit data (T5) and clear rating tools (T3)


5.3.3.14. Lack of collaborative integration (I1)


Inter-stakeholder collaboration is recognised by most interviewees as the

essential element to maximise mutual benefits for multiple stakeholders. The same

result was extracted from the correlation analysis in the questionnaire data.

Interviewees also argued that traditional leadership and roles should be calibrated in

the context of sustainability that involves value adding and trade-offs. Stronger and

more strategic interaction is needed to reinforce the roles of each stakeholder in the

housing development process so as to create an overall win-win situation.

Considering the extensive influence that collaboration and partnership could

potentially have on various other challenges, some interviewees suggested I1 should

be singled out as a fundamental principle for the mutual benefit paradigm:

“This new partnership is my answer.” (R16)

5.3.3.15. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks (I2)


Similar to the questionnaire finding, I2 raised little concern for industry

practitioners due to its narrow dimension as a tool to communicate information and

knowledge. It should therefore be incorporated as part of the proposed cost-benefit

database to disseminate knowledge and raise. awareness.

5.3.3.16. Inadequate policing of green washing and unsustainable practices (I3)

Finding #1: Current state

Green-washing is the deceptive labelling of sustainability for marketing

purposes when the products or properties are actually not as claimed. Interviewees

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I2 Serving as the communicating and knowledge diffusion channel of

the cost-benefit database

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I1 Laying the foundation for the implementation of other CABs

Assisting the paradigm shift towards mutual benefits


argued it is common for certain companies to pocket extra money under a “green”

guise:

“Things are being green-washed and unfortunately units are getting smaller,

prices are staying the same price.” (R15)

Most architects, consultants and builders believe that big developers will

maintain both the sustainable side and their business-as-usual side before sustainable

housing moves to the mainstream, which creates the opportunity for green washing.

Green-washing discourages the marketplace and remains a core issue for sustainable

development.

Finding #2: State

A recurring comment is that a system of post-construction rating or

commissioning is lacking. The common current practice is for development projects

to undertake assessment on design, so there could well be a gap between what has

been approved under design and what ultimately is put on the ground. The I3 issue

derives from the fragmentation of the design and construction processes, and

especially the separate design and construction processes in most cases. As the real

operator of technologies, materials and design, builders tend to try to deliver the

projects with the lowest cost possible. They often convince clients to cut sustainable

features, while some builders feel designers let them down because they do not

understand the new materials and the construction methods:

“Sustainable design often leaves the architect’s office in the best possible

way, but builders who try to win the tender by cost advantage water it down

later.” (R11)

Consultants also feel that their good intentions are sometimes negated by the

builder. Through this process, “deep green” projects have been turned into “light

green” projects before the market was even given the opportunity to see it.


Although interviewees pointed out the imperative of acting upon green

washing, they are optimistic about the possible solutions in general. They believe I3

is a short-term issue that will solve itself when the education level of developers and

consumers increases and when more solid cost-benefit data is provided. By that time,


a strong developer prescription will be seen to drive the builders to follow the

original design; while consumers will be able to choose the design to suit their needs

before purchase, and also insist on any sustainable features that they paid for. The

growing marketplace will eventually leave only true sustainable elements in place:

“Once people understand what sustainability is, they’ll be able to see what it

isn’t.” (R5)

In terms of policing, a government organisation like Australian Competition

and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is effective to regulate companies who make

unjustified claims about green products. The ACCC can fine speculators who cannot

substantiate their green claims. No extra “green police” is needed.

5.3.3.17. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and policymaking (I4)


The interview study found that consultants and builders encounter the biggest

problem with the inefficient certification and policymaking system. To save cost and

time, they tend to avoid professional rating tools in most projects:

“The process of get approval for a sustainable house that meets the ‘deemed

to satisfy’ standard normally should not take any longer than it has for a

conventional house. However, if a project has to go through a professional

rating system like green star or NABERS before it goes to the market, there

is a lot of administrative work and additional documentation required.” (R1)

Finding #2: State

One recurring comment about the reason for such ineffectiveness is that

government is allocating limited resources and money to sustainable development.

One interviewee argued that this involves a common phenomenon:

“So before an election, very green. After election, not so green. Government

people are neither innovative nor efficient. That is a political thing that is

with every single government in the world.” (R16)

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I3 A critical issue to affordability and market acceptance

To be alleviated through reliable cost-benefit data and enhanced public



Admittedly, allocating budget is a government choice and policymaking takes

time in every government of the world because of the huge range of competing

responsibilities. However, the interviewees suggested that government could fast-

track sustainable housing development with favourable policies like the “green

passage”. At the same time, most resources and efforts should be put in creating an

accurate, efficient and consistent national assessment system to standardise the

process.

5.3.3.18. Lack of comprehensive code or policy package to guide action (I5)


Although the Nationwide Housing Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) has

developed significantly in the past decade, interviewees believe that the current

legislation needs further clarity and solidarity in order to drive sustainable

development. There is room for policymakers to systemise the various policies to

guide sustainable practice every step along the way.

Finding #2: State

Policymaking officials are found to lack the thorough technical or scientific

expertise to consider the ramifications of what they are proposing. Firstly, as far as

regulators are concerned, the focus they have at the moment is on energy and water

performance. Other significant environmental aspects such as recycled materials are

missing in the rating system. Secondly, the regulators in general are believed to not

sufficiently consider the option of promoting stakeholder behavioural change through

benefits. Additionally, various policies operate in parallel, and inconsistencies

jeopardise the authority and public trust in the current regulatory regime.


Although various suggestions were made regarding this matter, a holistic code

for sustainable housing appears to be the common ground. The code should include a

rating tool and a related cost-benefit database, an incentive scheme and effective

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I4 An essential issue to policy takers such as developers and builders

Part of an effective regulatory mechanism (I5)


implementation guidelines. While governments continue to reinforce mandates, they

should allow industry-related departments like the ULDA and industry associations

like the HIA to take a championing role in code making. The leadership role fits

organisations such as these due to their scientific background and practical

experience in understanding the construction process. The holistic code could also

allow flexibility for sustainability clients (developer and consumers) to design their

buildings within legislative limits, in order to suit the client’s specific needs. This

approach would ensure an enduring code implementation that allows market demand

to take control of the innovations.

5.3.3.19. Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/legislation (I6)


The majority of the interviewees mentioned that the inconsistent messages

from parallel policies sabotage stakeholders’ perseverance to act and in turn hinder

sustainable housing development. There are inconsistencies between federal, state

and local governments, and industry associations. The various energy efficiency

rating tools are good examples. Developers and builders can easily choose the easiest

option to fulfil the minimal requirements. The seemingly excessive restrictions and

legal obligations curb the interest of those taking initial steps to exploring housing

sustainability:

“There’s a need to bring something together so there is one approach, it’s

very consistent that you will come up with the same answer on a given

design… to have three or four, it’s almost like you pick the one that’s going

to give you the best result.” (R3)

Finding #2: State

Interviewees believe that as long as Australia has three different systems of

government, then each system will want to participate in policymaking, which

inevitably will result in duplication and overlap. Governments are understandably

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I5 The cornerstone of incentives (E3) and rating tools (T3)

Entailing effective policymaking (I4) and consistent policy enforcement (I6)


motivated to avoid political risk, which often results in the creation of cumbersome

policy regimes.


Although it is not realistic to expect a lean and simple government structure,

many interviewees recommended a more streamlined mechanism for sustainable

housing. There needs to be one central point where stakeholders could go to obtain

information about regulations and policies. There has been a long-standing debate

about whether either the federal, state or local government should be the only

overarching organisation in policymaking. A consensus view emerged in the

interview study that having one ultimate organisation would benefit both consumers

and builders/developers. Most interviewees favoured local government to take this

role rather than the federal government, so different localities could have their own

interpretation and rules based on their specific climates:

“Federal government should not take the leadership, because they sit across

too many jurisdictions and variations. Therefore, I think they need to look at

mechanisms that encourage councils and state governments to implement a

correct regulatory regime that encourage sustainable housing. It’s one

government acting as the influencer on other governments to administer

regulations locally.” (R17)

This approach would allow a great extent of industry involvement, because it is

the local government that often deals with local branches of industry associations

like the MBA, GBCA and Environment Protection Authority. On the other hand,

federal government can facilitate the communication and align the policies made by

local government to ensure consistency. In other words, to use both the strengths of

both governments, federal government could act as the influencer, while local

governments compose and administrate regulations and policies.

Highlights of the hierarchical significance of I6 A critical challenge to policy takers such as developers and builders



5.4 SUMMARY

This chapter presented the results of 20 interviews with participants from the

seven key stakeholder groups: government officials, developers, builders,

architects/designers, sustainability consultants, financial institutions and real estate

agents. It identifies the roles, benefits and risks of engaging in sustainable housing

for each key stakeholder. Following the analysis for individual stakeholders, a direct

comparison was made in order to portray value gaps and collective perceptions in

between. Based on these findings in Section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, the major barriers for

stakeholders to pursue mutual benefits are summarised in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Key Barriers to Pursuing Mutual Benefits

Stakeholders Barriers

Government agency

The risk of criticism misusing government budget and

making policies without scientific or technological

considerations

Ineffective communication with major policy takers such

as builders and developers

Consumer

Conservatism in market uptake resulting from patchy

available cost-benefit data

Developer

Pursuing capital return and traditional selling point

(accessibility and affordability) and therefore lacking of

sustainable considerations

Education barrier of cost-benefit data

Builder

Watering down designers’ sustainable design because of

the actual technical risk of post-purchase service and

leaving their trusted networks

Education barrier of cost-benefit data

Architect/ Designer

Limited influential power on knowledge diffusion to

developers


Good design watered down by builders

Other consultants

Limited influential power on knowledge diffusion to

developers and government agencies

Good design watered down by builders

Financial institution

Pursuing traditional selling point and excluding

sustainability in the appraisal system

Experiencing greater learning curve on sustainability

issues

Real Estate Agency

Pursuing traditional selling point and excluding

sustainability in the appraisal system

Experiencing greater learning curve on sustainability

issues

This identified knowledge of stakeholder diversity helped understand CABs in

a dynamic and diverse supply chain setting, and lay the foundation for mutual benefit

paradigms through collaborations. Based on this platform, the interview study further

examined the current state, problems and potential strategies of the 19 CABs using

the Pressure-State-Response model. These findings triangulated, explained and

further extended the quantitative questionnaire results on CAB significance and

interrelationships among CABs. Table 5.10 summarised these hierarchal

significances. This analysis will help identify the contextual relationships of

CFAMBs, which will be used as the initial input to formulate the structural

framework in chapter 6.

Table 5.10 Hierarchical Significance of CABs

CAB Hierarchical significance T1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials

While it is adequate to meet current legislative requirements, T1 remains a critical factor for breakthroughs in sustainable practices in the long run

Contributing to higher cost-benefit ratio (T5), accurate


measurement of sustainability (T3) and leading to economies of scale


Re-education is critical to change behaviour

Based on sound cost-benefit data (T5)

Driving the advance of sustainable technologies and design (T1,T4)

Influencing public awareness (S4)


The Australian housing industry does not lack rating tools, but the consistency and accuracy needs to be further addressed

Built on sound cost-benefit data (T5) and effective enforcement of policies (I4, I6)

Foster public awareness (S4) and increase market scale


A core challenge to the advance of sustainable practices

Contributing to higher cost-benefit ratio (T5), accurate measurement of sustainability (T3) and leading to economies of scale


Fundamental factor for sustainable housing development

Paving the way for educational factors (T2, S4), measuring tools (T3)

Requiring government alliance, particularly financially (E3), in building a scientific research mechanism

E1. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change

Future policy and market trend in Australia has appeared clear towards housing sustainability

Not an essential CAB itself, but its broad connotation covers other critical CABs and determines the ultimate debate of mutual benefits

E2. High investment cost

Top challenge due to the nature of business for profit, and current advance of sustainable practices

Driven by advances in technology and design (T1, T4), incentives (E3)

Closely associated with green washing (I3) and influences market demand

E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment

A powerful driving tool that links government revenue to the housing industry


advantages Relying on effective regulations (I4, I6)

Foster R&D (T1, T4 and T5)

S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change traditional practices

S1 is not an essential challenge to tackle. The widely adopted mandate of energy efficiency has driven the awareness campaign to a point where most people will change if initial cost is not an obstacle.


Less important

S3. Lack of social conscience about climate change and natural resource preservation

Less important


More scientific details are needed in the education and information dissemination to drive the behaviour change

The Internet will play an unprecedented role in driving sustainable housing into the mainstream

Driving market demand and prevent green washing (I3)

Built on solid cost-benefit data (T5) and clear rating tools (T3)

S5. Contested functionality for end users

Less important

I1. Lack of collaborative integration

Laying the foundation for the implementation of other CABs

Assisting paradigm change towards mutual benefits

I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks

Important for knowledge diffusion

Serving as the passage of the cost-benefit database


A critical issue to affordability and market acceptance

Will be alleviated through solid cost-benefit data and enhanced public education

I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and policymaking

A critical challenge to policy takers such as developers and builders


I5. Lack of The cornerstone of incentives (E3) and rating tools (T3)


comprehensive code or policy package to guide action

Entailing effective policymaking (I4) and consistent policy enforcement (I6)


A critical challenge to policy takers such as developers and builders


Chapter 6: A Framework for Mutual Benefits of Multiple Stakeholders 177

Chapter 6: A Framework for Mutual Benefits of Multiple Stakeholders

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Challenges of achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing

development have been examined with seven key stakeholder groups through a

questionnaire and interview. The importance, current state, problems and strategies

of each CAB were examined in a multiple-stakeholder environment by addressing

the diverse needs and value gaps in the housing supply chain. Additionally, the

diverse stakeholder needs were also investigated in terms of their roles, benefit

patterns and value gaps on the 19 CABs. Based on the findings of CAB significance

in the multi-stakeholder context reported in the previous chapters, this chapter goes

further to identify the critical factors of achieving mutual benefits (CFAMBs) among

key stakeholders engaging in sustainable housing from the 19 original CABs. The

random and complex interrelationships between CFAMBS are also transformed into

structural and quantifiable mutual influences (driving force and dependence) via the

interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique. These synthesised findings lead to

the formulation of a mutual-benefit framework that is based on a structural

implementation of commonly agreed CFAMBS and a stakeholder collaborative

model.

6.2 INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELLING TECHNIQUE AND DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

6.2.1 Interpretive Structural Modelling Purpose

ISM is an advanced interactive management technique that assists research by

imposing order and direction on complex relationships among elements in a set

(Janes, 1988; Warfield, 1974).The elements to be structured, such as objectives,

barriers and enablers, are defined by the group at the beginning of the ISM planning

session. The group also specifies a relational statement that defines the type of

relationship desired such as “aggravates”, “enhances”, “contributes to”, and

“precedes” (Bolanos et al., 2005). The term ISM refers to the systematic application

178 Chapter 6: A Framework for Mutual Benefits of Multiple Stakeholders

of graph theory in such a way that theoretical, conceptual and computational leverage

is exploited to efficiently construct a directed graph, or network representation, of the

complex pattern of a contextual relationship among the set of these elements. It

is interpretive as the judgment of the group decides whether and how the variables

are related. It is structural as, on the basis of the relationship, an overall structure is

extracted from the complex set of variables. It is a modelling technique as the

specific relationships and overall structure are portrayed in a graphical model.

Although ISM is primarily intended as a group learning process, individual

researchers may also apply it to identify structure within a system of related elements

(Ahuja, 2007; Ravi & Shankar, 2005; Singh & Kant, 2007).

This research utilises ISM to build a hierarchical/structural model of CFAMBs.

In the particular context of this research, as multiple causes and effects lead to

numerous direct and indirect relationships among the CFAMBs, ISM is an

appropriate methodology to transform these unclear, poorly articulated mental

concepts into a visible, well-defined overall structure portrayed by a graphical model.

For example, this analysis shows the driving factors that should be prioritised with

action in order to tackle challenges regarding other CFAMBs. It also shows what

dependant factors will automatically be alleviated providing the achievement of their

“upstream” factors (Ahuja, 2007). More importantly, ISM allows a directed graphic

representation of the eventually identified hierarchy, which aids the comprehension

of the mutual influences among CFAMBs to a great extent. Understanding the

mutual influences of CFAMBs will in turn optimise the relevant strategies, and

provide a framework for housing industry organisations to plan the implementation

of sustainable housing on a project level.

6.2.2 Interpretive Structural Modelling Procedures

There are eight steps in developing an ISM model as shown in Figure 6.1

(Faisal, 2010). This research closely follows these steps to structure a model of

stakeholders’ agreed knowledge on CFAMBs.


Figure 6.1. ISM procedures

6.3 INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELLING ANALYSIS

6.3.1 Identification of Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits

As outlined in Section 3.5.1, the 19 CABs represent factors that either pull or

push sustainable housing development, which trigger benefit gain or loss for

different stakeholders. The evaluation and comparison of these CABs is to facilitate

identifying the first fold mutual benefit as stated in Section 1.2: multiple interested

parties reaching “consensus” on the multi-dimensional knowledge itself. To this end,

those challenges that received commonly higher attention in the survey study stand

Step 1: Identify elements (or variables) that are relevant to the complex system (or problem). These elements could be objectives, barriers, enablers, etc., and could be extracted from survey. These elements refer to the CFAMBs to be identified in this research.

Step 2: Establish contextual relationships (random and complex interrelationships identified from questionnaire and interview study) between CFAMBs identified in step 1.

Step 3: Formulate a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of CFAMBs that displays the pair-wise relationship in between.

Step 4: Develop a reachability matrix based on the SSIM to calculate the numerical mutual influence, and checking the matrix for transitivity. The transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption in ISM which states that if element A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C.

Step 5: Partition the reachability matrix into different levels.

Step 6: Based on the relationships given above in the reachability matrix, draw a directed graph (digraph), and remove the transitive links.

Step 7: Convert the resultant digraph into an ISM-based model by replacing element nodes with the statements.

Step 8: Review the model to check for conceptual inconsistency and make the necessary medications.


out to become critical factors of achieving stakeholder mutual benefits (CFAMBs).

This section presented this analysis process as follows.

Based on the synthesised findings on the significance and current status of

CABs from the survey and interview findings, a list of CFAMBs was extracted over

the course of three steps. In step one, seven unessential challenges were removed

from the original CAB list as shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Removed CABs from the Original CAB List

CAB Synthesised Results from Questionnaire and Interview

Analysis

E1. Unclear benefits

from future

legislation, policy and

market change

On the macro level, government’s current determination to

transform the housing market towards an environmentally

friendly yet affordable blueprint has relieved the

prospective political risk.

On the micro level, E1 will be built upon other subordinate

challenges, e.g. rating tools (T3), incentive mechanism

(E3), cost-benefit ratio (T5) and market demand. It serves

as a superior aim for its affiliation with mutual benefits.

S1. Reluctance to

leave the comfort

zone and change


S1 is no longer essential considering energy efficiency, as

an explicit indicator of sustainability, has been mandated in

the building code.

S1 will be entirely tackled by itself at the establishment of

the mutual benefit paradigm.

S2. Insufficient

reputation increase,

brand recognition and

(or) competitive

advantage

Ranked 18th out of 19 CABs

Major stakeholders have seen established brand

recognition from engaging in sustainable practices,

although competitive advantage still needs greater market

uptake to materialise. In general, S2 is believed to be a

minor hindrance to stakeholder benefits.


S3. Lack of social

conscience regarding

climate change and

natural resource

preservation


Stakeholders care about the environment until they are

asked to put extra money or efforts into it. Therefore, S3

itself is not a significant challenge for the Australian

housing industry.

S5. Contested

functionality for end

users


Increased functionality from commonly used sustainable

technologies, design and material has been proven.

I2. Lack of inter-

stakeholder

communication

networks


I2 raised little concern for industry practitioners due to its

narrow dimension as a tool to communicate information

and knowledge. Interviewees believe it should be

incorporated as part of the proposed cost-benefit database

in order to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness.

I5. Lack of

comprehensive code

or policy package to

guide action

I5 is an amalgamation of four separate CABs respectively

related to a rating tool (T3) and its related cost-benefit

database (T5), an incentive scheme (E3) and an effective

implementation guideline (I4 and I6). This interview finding is

supported by the Spearman’s rho correlation test of the

questionnaire study (as shown in Table 4.9), where I5 displays

significant correlation with T3 (R=0.702), T5 (R=0.288), E3

(R=0.415), I4 (R=0.533) and I6 (R=0.310).

The analysis in step 2 was then conducted to amalgamate challenges with

bonding natures. This part of the analysis drew conclusions from the correlations

between each pair of CABs, with the aid of the quantitative Spearman’s rho test of

the questionnaire study and the qualitative content analysis of the interview study. In

the quantitative Spearman’s rho test, a correlation coefficient ranged from -1 and +1

was used to measure the strength and direction of relationships as shown in Table

6.2. Two pairs of CABs were respectively merged into two single CABs for their


inherent connections. Firstly, T1 “Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or

materials” and T4 “Lack of integrated design and life-cycle management” was

combined as one factor “Technology and design R&D” due to the close relationship

between them (correlation coefficient =0.376). This quantitative finding was

supported by a comment made by an interview respondent pointing out that these

two factors together laid the foundation of R&D and should share the same

hierarchical significance.

Table 6.2 Spearman’s rho correlations (R) of significant CABs

CAB T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 E2 E3 S4 I1 I3 I4 I6 T1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials

1 .273 .374 **

.376 **

.403 **

.219 .334 *

.213 -.010

.020 .290 *

.182


1 .522 **

.542 **

.512 **

.067 .147 .266 .368 **

.103 .162 .395 **


1 .517 **

.338 *

.401 **

.578 **

.132 .334 *

.005 .391 **

.338 *


1 .443 **

.214 .259 .148 .354 *

.113 .190 .372 **


1 .190 .037 .312 *

.292 *

.194 .089 .311 *

E2. High investment cost 1 .569 **

.111 .069 - .144

.070 .134

E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment advantages

1 .104 .150 .039 .332 *

.355 *


1 .274 .203 .210 .320 *

I1. Lack of collaborative integration

1 .120 .298 *

.276


1 .219 .313 *

I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and policymaking

1 .555 **


1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)


Additionally, I4 “Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and

policymaking” and I6 “Duplication and confusion arising from parallel

policies/legislation” were merged as “Effective regulatory mechanism”. Interviewees

believed that both factors relate to the effectiveness of the current policymaking and

should be dealt with together. This viewpoint was supported by a high Spearman

correlation coefficient of 0.555.

Finally in step 3, two latent factors emerged in the interview study as

significant in connecting high investment cost, public education and awareness,

rating tool and technology and design R&D. They are “market demand” and “market

scale”. Based on all the analysis presented thus far, 10 critical CABs and two

emerging factors were identified as the critical factors of achieving mutual benefits

among key stakeholders engaging in sustainable housing. They are shown in Table

6.3. For the convenience of restructuring CFAMBs via ISM analysis, they are

numbered from 1 to 12.

Table 6.3 Twelve Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits (CFAMBs)

No. Critical CABs and Emerging Significant

Factors

Synthesised CFAMBs

1 Technologies or materials & T4. Integrated

design

Technology and design

R&D

2 Lack of professional education and training

programs for industry

Professional re-education

&up-scaling

3 Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently

define and measure sustainability

Rating tools (to measure

sustainability)

4 Insufficient cost-benefit data from

interdisciplinary research

Cost-benefit data

5 High investment cost Cost issues

6 Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other

investment advantages

Incentive system

7 Insufficient demand-side education from media

and other channels

Public education

&awareness

8 Inadequate policing of green washing and Mitigating Green-washing


unsustainable practices

9 Slow administrative process & duplication

from policies

Effective regulatory

system

10 Market demand Market demand

11 Market scale Market scale

12 Lack of collaborative integration Innovative collaboration

6.3.2 Identification of Contextual Relationship among CFAMBs and Development of the Self-Interaction Matrix

The contextual relationship or mutual influences among CFAMBs were

identified through qualitative content analysis summarised in Chapter 5, with the

assistance of the Spearman’s rho correlation test as shown above in Table 6.2. This

research utilises the initial structural self-interaction matrix (ISSM) to present these

contextual relationships. The hierarchical significances summarised in Table 5.10

were further standardized via formulating the ISSM. On this note, ISSM is not only

an input element of the Interpretive Structure Model, but also a normalized output

element of the qualitative analysis on CAB interrelationships. Specifically, four

symbols: V, A, X and O, are used to denote the existence of a relation between any

two CFAMBs (i and j) and the direction of the relationship. The connotation of these

symbols and corresponding examples are given in Table 6.4 (Faisal, 2010).

Table 6.4 Symbols to Represent the Contextual Relationship in the ISM

Symbol Rationale Example Displayed value

in reachability

matrix

V CFAMBi

will

aggravate

CFAMBj

Stronger rating tools to measure

sustainability will lead to increased

market scale of sustainable housing.

Therefore, the mutual influence between

CFAMB3 and CFAMB11 is “V”.

(i, j) entry=1

(j, i) entry=0

A CFAMBi

will be

Cost issues will be alleviated by the

increased market scale and the

(i, j) entry=0

(j, i) entry=1


aggravated

by

CFAMB j

corresponding possibility of wholesale

manufacturing. Thus, the mutual

influence between CFAMB5 and

CFAMB11 is “A”.

X CFAMBi

and j will

aggravate

each other

When cost issues are alleviated through

wholesale manufacturing of sustainable

technologies and products, developers

and builders tend not to claim and charge

for green features they did not

incorporate (green washing); this will in

turn lessen the cost burden on customers.

Therefore, the mutual influence between

CFAMB5 and CFAMB8 is “X”.

(i, j) entry=1

(j, i) entry=1

O CFAMBi

and j are

unrelated

No direct relationship appears to exist

betweenCFAMB2 (Professional re-

education &up-scaling) and CFAMB9

(Effective regulatory system), so the

relationship is “O”.

(i, j) entry=0

(j, i) entry=0

The Initial Structural Self-Interaction Matrix is shown in Table 6.5. It should

be noted that CFAMB12 “Innovative collaboration” was excluded from the ISSM

and thus the following ISM. This is because I1 should be singled out as a

fundamental principle for the mutual benefit paradigm, considering the extensive

potential influence of collaboration and partnership on various other challenges. This

viewpoint was supported by several interviewees as well as the Kendall’s Tau

correlation test of the questionnaire (refer to Section 4.3.3.2) where stronger

correlations were found between “Lack of collaborative integration” (I1) and most

(six out of nine) other CFAMBs. However, the underpinning role of CFAMB 12 will

be included in the final hierarchical framework.


Table 6.5 Initial Structural Self-Interaction Matrix of CFAMBs

No. CFAMB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Technology and design R&D A O V V A O O O O X

2 Professional re-education

&up-scaling

A A O O V O O O O

3 Rating tools A O O V O A O V

4 Cost-benefit data O A V O O O O

5 Cost issues A O X O V A

6 Incentive system O O A O O

7 Public education &awareness V O V A

8 Mitigating green-washing O O O

9 Effective regulatory system O O

10 Market demand V

11 Market scale

6.3.3 Reachability Matrix

The Initial Structural Self-Interaction Matrix is then transformed into a binary

matrix, called the reachability matrix, by substituting V, A, X and O by 1 and 0 as

appropriate (Table 6.6). The rules are shown above in Table 6.4.

Table 6.6 Initial Reachability Matrix

No. CFAMB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Technology and design R&D

1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2 Professional re-education &up-scaling

1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

3 Rating tools 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Cost-benefit data 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Cost issues 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 Incentive system 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

7 Public education &awareness

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

8 Mitigating green-washing

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

9 Effective regulatory system

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


10 Market demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 Market scale 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

However, before the reachability matrix is finalised, transitive links that may

exist between remotely connected variables need to be investigated. For example, in

Table 6.5 there is no direct relationship between CFAMB1 “Technology and design

R&D” and CFAMB7 “Public education & awareness”. However, CFAMB1

aggravates CFAMB4 “Cost-benefit database” and CFAMB4 aggravates CFAMB7.

Hence, according to Step 4 of the ISM process, it can be inferred that CFAMB1 has

an aggravating impact on CFAMB7. Thus in the final reachability matrix the cell

entry (Row 1, Column 7) is 1 as shown in Table 6.7. It should be noted that the

adjustment on transitive links were only conducted for one iteration to ensure that

indirect links are strong enough between CFAMBs. Several other transitive links

were changed in the same way and shown in Table 6.7, together with the driving

power and dependence of each CFAMB. The driving power for each CFAMB is the

total number of CFAMB (including itself) which it may impact. Dependence of a

CFAMB is the total number of CFAMBs (including itself) which may be impacting

on it. They preliminarily depict the mutual influence of CFAMBs in a quantitative

manner. These quantitative driving powers and dependences provides the numerical

basis for the level partition and Cross Impact Matrices-Multiplication Applied to

Classification (MIC-MAC) analysis in the following Section 6.3.4 and 6.3.6.

Table 6.7 Final Reachability Matrix

No. CFAMB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Driving Power

1 Technology and design R&D

1 1* 1* 1 1 0 1* 1* 0 1* 1 9

2 Professional education &up-scaling

1 1 0 1* 1* 0 1 0 0 1* 0 6

3 Rating tools 1* 1 1 0 1* 0 1 1* 0 1* 1 8

4 Cost-benefit data

1* 1 1 1 0 0 1 1* 0 1* 1* 8

5 Cost issues 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1* 0 1 1 4

6 Incentive system

1 1* 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 1* 0 9

7 Public 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1* 1* 5


education &awareness

8 Mitigating green-washing

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

9 Effective regulatory system

1* 1* 1 1* 0 1 1* 0 1 0 1* 8

10 Market demand

1* 0 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

11 Market scale 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1* 0 1* 1 6 Dependence 8 6 5 5 9 2 8 8 2 9 8

Note: *denotes transitive links

6.3.4 Level Partitions

The partition levels were identified based on the final reachability matrix as a

hierarchical reference for the final framework. This paves the way for direct

visualisation of the driving forces and dependent factors via graphical means.

Firstly, the reachability and the antecedent set for each CFAMB were identified

from the final reachability matrix. Taking CFAMB1 “Technology and design R&D”

for example, its reachability set R (CFAMB1) is defined as the set of other CFAMBs

that are reachable from CFAMB1. It consists of itself and all the CFAMBs with the

value “1” in the row corresponding to CFAMB1 in Table 6.7: CFAMB1, CFAMB2,

CFAMB3, CFAMB4, CFAMB5, CFAMB7, CFAMB8, CFAMB10, CFAMB11.

Similarly, the antecedent set A (CFAMB1) is defined as the set of other CFAMBs

that reach CFAMB1. It consists of itself and all the CFAMBs with the value “1” in

the row corresponding to CFAMB1 in Table 6.7: CFAMB1, CFAMB2, CFAMB3,

CFAMB4, CFAMB6, CFAMB9, CFAMB10, CFAMB11. The intersection set I

(CFAMB1) of R (CFAMB1) and A (CFAMB1) contains those common CFAMBS

from both sides, namely CFAMB1, CFAMB2, CFAMB3, CFAMB4, CFAMB10,

CFAMB11. The first round of level partition will accordingly list the reachability set,

antecedent set and intersection set for each CFAMB. When the intersection set for a

certain CFAMB is found to be identical with its reachability set, this CFAMB will be

singled out for this round of iteration. It means that this CFAMB should be put at the

top of the hierarchy because it will not reach any other CFAMB above its own level

(Sage, 1977; Faisal, 2010).In other words, it has the least driving power for other

CFAMBs, and is dependent on the resolution of other CFAMBs to tackle itself. This

is because, if CFAMB1 is not a top level element, the reachability set would include


elements from higher levels, and the intersection of the reachability and the

antecedent sets would differ from the reachability set.

Following this approach, in the first iteration of the level partition (Table 6.8),

CFAMB8 “Green-washing” and CFAMB10 “Market demand” were identified as the

top level elements in the hierarchy. Similarly, another 11 iterations of analysis were

conducted until all the 11 CFAMBs are prioritised and grouped into 8 levels. Table

6.9 and Table 6.10 respectively shows the last iteration and final eight levels of

partition. The higher-level CFAMBs could generally be considered to have little

impact on tackling the CFAMBs below them, while the lower-level CFAMBs tend to

be able to pave the way for those challenges above their level.

Table 6.8 Iteration 1 of Level Partition

No. CFAMB Reachability Set

R

Antecedent Set

A

Intersection

Set I

Level

1 Technology and

design R&D 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11 1,2,3,4,6,9,10,11 1,2,3,4,10,11

2 Professional

education &up-

scaling

1,2,4,5,7, 10 1,2,3,4,6,9 1,2,4

3 Rating tools 1,2,3,5,7,8,10,11 1,3,4,6,9 1,3

4 Cost-benefit data 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,11 1,2,4,6,9 1,2,4

5 Cost issues 5,8,10,11

1,2,3,

5,6,7,8,10,11 5,8,10,11

6 Incentive system 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 6,9 6

7 Public education

&awareness 5,7,8,10,11 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,11 7,11

8 Mitigating green-

washing 5,8 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,11 5,8 1

9 Effective

regulatory

system

1,2,3,4,6,7,9,11 9 9

10 Market demand 1,5,10,11 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 1,5,10,11 1


,11

11 Market scale 1,5,7,8,10,11 1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11 1,5,7,10,11

Table 6.9 Iteration 8 (Last Iteration) of Level Partition

No. CFAMB Reachability

Set (R)

Antecedent

Set (A)

Intersection

Set (I)

Level

9 Effective regulatory

system 9 9 9 8

Table 6.10 Levels of CFAMBs

Levels No. CFAMB Reachability

Set (R)

Antecedent

Set (A)

Intersection

Set (I)

VIII. 8 Mitigating green-

washing 5,8 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,11 5,8

10 Market demand 1,5,10,11

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10

,11 1,5,10,11

VII. 5 Cost issues 5 ,11 1,2,3, 5,6,7, 11 5,11

11 Market scale 1,5,7, 11 1,3,4,5,7,9,11 1,5,7, 11

VI. 7 Public education

&awareness 7 12,3,4,6,7,9 7

V. 1 Technology and

design R&D 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6,9 1,2,3,4

2 Professional re-

education &up-

scaling

1,2,4 1,2,3,4,6,9 1,2,4

IV. 3 Rating tools 3 3,4,6,9 3

III. 4 Cost-benefit data 4 4,6,9 4

II. 6 Incentive system 6 6,9 6

I. 9 Effective regulatory

system 9 9 9


6.3.5 Visualising the ISM-Based Model

From the partition levels in Table 6.11, the structural model could be visualised

in a directed diagraph by means of vertices or nodes and arrows as shown in Figure

6.2. Each vertices and arrow respectively depicts the CFAMBs and their mutual

influence (accounting for transitive influences) as per this research. For example, if

the achievement of CFAMBj in any way leads to the improvement of CFAMBi, an

arrow points from i to j.

Figure 6.2. ISM model of CFAMBs

Effective Regulatory System

Incentive System

Cost-Benefit Data

Rating Tools

Technology and Design R&D

Professional Re-education & Up-Scaling

Public Education & Awareness

Market Scale Cost Issues

Mitigating Green-Washing

Market Demand


6.3.6 Conceptualisation of the Mutual-benefit Framework

Based on the previous discussion of the ISM modelling, the present section

further frames the CFAMBs, their mutual influence in a systematic mutual benefit

framework. This development process involves categorising 12 CFAMBs and

incorporating related action guides into the current ISM model in Figure 6.2.

The 11 CFAMBs in Figure 6.2 were firstly divided into three groups according

to the driving power and dependence of each CFAMB in the hierarchy. This step was

conducted via a quantitative Cross Impact Matrices-Multiplication Applied to

Classification (MIC-MAC) analysis based on the already identified driving power

and dependence in Table 6.7. By assigning the level of dependence and driving

power as the x-coordinate and y-coordinate of each CFAMB, respectively, all the

CFAMBs are classified under four quadrants as shown in Figure 6.3 (Mandal &

Deshmukh, 1994).

Figure 6.3. Categorisation of CFAMBs

Dependence

Autonomous Variables

Driving Variables

Linkage Variables

Dependent Variables

CFAMB 1 CFAMB 6

CFAMB 9 CFAMB 3, 4

CFAMB 2 CFAMB 7

CFAMB 11

CFAMB 5, 10

CFAMB 8

Dri

ving

Pow

er


The first quadrant includes those CFAMBs with robust driving power but weak

dependence, and therefore defines what we call “driving variables”. These variables

tend to reside on the bottom of the hierarchy in Figure 6.2. As per this research,

CFAMB3 “Rating tools”, CFAMB4 “Cost-benefit data”, CFAMB6 “Incentive

system” and CFAMB9 “Effective regulatory system” fell within this cluster and

formed the initial driving forces of other CFAMBs.

The second quadrant includes those CFAMBs with relatively strong driving

power and strong dependence, and therefore defines “linkage variables”. These

variables tend to reside at the centre of the hierarchical model. This research

accordingly identified CFAMB1 “Technology and design R&D” as having such

characteristics. CFAMB2 “Professional re-education &up-scaling” and CFAMB7

“Public education &awareness”, positioned in the boundary between two quadrants,

were recruited under this cluster due to their inherent connection with CFAMB1.

They together play the intermediate roles in conveying the driving forces down to the

end CFAMBs. However, variables within this group tend to bear great vulnerability

and are subject to changes of variables from other clusters.

The third quadrant includes those CFAMBs with weak driving power but

strong dependence, and therefore defines what we call “dependent variables”. These

variables tend to reside at the top of the hierarchy in Figure 6.2. Variables with such

features in this research include CFAMB5 “Cost issues”, CFAMB8 “Mitigating

green-washing”, CFAMB10 “Market demand” and CFAMB11 “Market scale”. They

serve as the end product of this hierarchy and indicate the success or failure of the

implementation of sustainable housing.

According to Faisal (2010), the last quadrant, “autonomous variables”, is

normally disconnected from the system with limited linkages to other factors in the

system. In other words, this quadrant should include factors bearing neither strong

driving power nor dependence. However, no particular CFAMBs were identified for

this quadrant. This proved the solidarity of all the identified CFAMBs in terms of

their significance in sustainable housing development. Based on the three existing

quadrants, 11 CFAMBs were further categorised into three groups, each playing

different roles in achieving mutual benefits for multiple key stakeholders. The next

section presents the systematic framework in detail.


As evidenced above, three groups of CFAMBs were respectively identified as

the driving variables, linkage variables and dependent variables. Together with the

fundamental factor “Innovative collaboration” (CFAMB12) noted in Section 6.3.2,

four levels of CFAMBs constitute the basic elements of the mutual benefit

framework. Based on this shared vision of 12 critical issues and particularly the

fundamental factor “innovative collaboration”, different strategies could be

developed and prioritised to enforce implementation. In accord with such micro-level

strategies, the action guide of each CFAMB might also be extracted from the

previous mixed-method studies. These strategies and action guides are discussed in

detail in the next section.

6.4 THE MUTUAL BENEFIT FRAMEWORK FOR MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS

This systematic framework reflects stakeholder mutual benefits in accord to the

two-fold principle of collaborative theories. Firstly, Figure 6.4 presents four levels of

implementation, which is based on the interdependency (driving force and

dependence) of twelve critical factors of stakeholder mutual benefits identified via

“consensus” among seven groups of key stakeholders. The four levels are innovative

collaboration, regulatory enforcement, R&D and knowledge diffusion, and market

and industry adaptation. Each level includes several CFAMBs in the implementation

of sustainable housing for key stakeholders, and a series of corresponding activities

to guide such an implementation. Achieving CFAMBs that are higher up in the

hierarchy will support sequential CFAMBs, and drive sustainable housing

development into a positive cycle where key stakeholders voluntarily take up

sustainable practices by pursuing mutual benefits.

Secondly, the fundamental factor of this framework, “innovative

collaboration”, highlights the “collaborative and communicative” actions based on

balanced stakeholder needs to convey the consensus knowledge. A collaboration

model was established for this factor in order to demonstrate the spirit of

“stakeholders that have both something to give to and something to gain from other

stakeholders” (Innes, 2004). This framework is detailed in the following sections.


Figure 6.4. Mutual-benefit framework


6.4.1 Innovative Collaboration – the Prerequisite

The first level as shown in the top column of the framework is innovative

collaboration. It leads to the creation and communication of mutual benefits for

multiple stakeholders at every step along the implementation. As such, it serves as

“the prerequisite” for the other eleven factors in the framework. Action guide for this

factor highlights a clear stakeholder structure that explicates leadership, as well as

individual roles and explains how major stakeholders could ultimately benefit from

engaging in a new context of sustainable housing compared to conventional housing.

A preliminary collaboration model, shown in Figure 6.5, was developed to

describe stakeholders’ interactions and key collaborative activities because of the

decisive yet sophisticated role of collaboration in promoting mutual benefits. Based

on their roles and benefit procurement patterns, stakeholders are divided into three

groups: regulators, supply-side practitioners and consumers.

The Regulators

The first group, as shown in the top row of Figure 6.5, includes government

and the auxiliary scientific community (such as the CSIRO). This group wants to

address environmental challenges to fulfil national goals and international

agreements (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) and meet the needs of the nation’s future

generations. They also directly benefit from related environmental tax schemes. As a

result, government bodies are probably the best placed and equipped to enforce

regulations of sustainable practices and carry out various incentives and educational

programs to develop the public interest. Government and its scientific community

should promote innovations by politically encouraging and economically rewarding

new ideas based on their strong financial resources and technological skills. They can

provide the initial driving power for sustainable housing development and can

monitor the implementation activities of other housing industry practitioners and

consumers.


Figure 6.5. A preliminary collaboration model based on stakeholder interaction


The Delivery Party

The second group (shown in the middle row in Figure 6.5) consists of industry

practitioners who form the delivery channel of sustainable housing: developers,

builders, architects/designers, other consultants, financial institutions, real estate

agents and professional associations such as the HIA, MBA, GBCA and UDIA. The

members of this group oversee the design and construction processes and are

responsible for bringing housing to the market to meet consumers’ needs and

government regulatory requirements.

In general, this group either has to take higher financial risk or go through a

greater learning curve when involving themselves in sustainable housing, where a

premium cost is often involved. Despite the increased reputation that results from

sustainable practices, the tangible benefits mainly manifest when reputation

translates to competitive advantage as the market scales up. Driven by economic

returns, industry practitioners will be less enthusiastic in the period before the

mainstream market is ready for sustainable housing. However, the members of this

group will quickly embrace the new learning curve of sustainable practices and start

internalising related skills once the market momentum accrues and the market scale

escalates. To use this trait of the ‘delivery’ group to advantage, government guidance

and regulation is indispensable to boost the market uptake in the early stage of


Consumers

The last group in the collaboration model (in the bottom row in Figure 6.5) is

comprised of consumers whose awareness and attitude towards sustainable housing

largely affect the motivation of other industry actors. In turn, consumer awareness

and attitude become the ultimate determinant of the market scale.

Survey respondents and interviewees in this research believe an increasing

number of potential home buyers might invest additional money on sustainable

features because they expect collateral advantages such as life-time energy saving,

premium resale price and most importantly, enhanced health and comfort in a house.

This finding is in line with survey results in which one-third of Australians were

found to be prepared to pay 10% and more for green products or services (Allan,

2009; Michaelis et al, 2010). Ideally, consumers will also directly benefit from

sustainable practices. However, until a reliable cost-benefit database is well


established to quantitatively measure these consumer advantages, the one-sided

argument on cost issues, although flawed, will remain the greatest obstacle to

adoption by consumers.

Figure 6.6 presents potential mutual benefits in between the above three groups

of stakeholders in a more direct conceptual diagram. These mutual benefits will be

reflected in the detailed action guides for each CFAMBs. The actions guide will be

presented in the following sections.

Figure 6.6. Conceptual stakeholder mutual benefits among key stakeholders

The following text box shows the action guide developed to identify where

improvements could be made to promote “innovative collaboration”. As shown

below, the action guide outlines the hierarchical significance (significance based on

mutual influence), problems and recommendations. The first two aspects facilitate

Government and Scientific Community (Group 1)

Consumer (Group 3)

The delivery channel (Group 2)

Developer

Builder Real Estate Agency Financial Institution

Architect/Designer Consultant

- Revenue of Tax Scheme - Environmental goals

- Cost-benefit database - “Education and reward” package - Incentive and fund

- Market scale - Cost-benefit database - Scientific guide and policymaking - Effective incentive and conviction - Technical support

- Revenue of Tax Scheme - Environmental goals

- Market scale

- Innovative remuneratio

- Innovative remuneratio

- Good design - Collaboration Opportunity

- Marketing - Green loan

- Education - Market niche

- Improved functionality - Reasonable cost- benefit ratio - Hands-on education


stakeholders in decision making when confronted with collaborative issues, and the

third aspect offers an actual work plan for stakeholders by specifying “who, what and

how”. The successful implementation of these activities will lay the foundation for

other factors in the framework to be implemented.

Action Guide for

Innovative Collaboration

Hierarchical Significance Problems

Lay foundation for the implementation of

other CABs

Create the basis of mutual benefit

paradigms

Blurred stakeholder structure based on

the benefit procurement patterns from

sustainable housing

Insufficient cooperation between

governments, developers and consumers

Recommendations

Clarify stakeholder structure based on benefit patterns as the basis of collaborations

(Figure 6.5)

Government leadership:

1. Establish a government-centred incentive system to developers, builders and

consumers based on government revenue from environmental policies and

regulations.

2. Incorporate sustainability into the assessment system through collaboration

among governments, the construction industry and the financial industry

Developer leadership – establishing a subsidiary developer-centred reward system to other

industry practitioners on a project basis.

Industry association leadership – authorised professional industry associations such as

HIA to take leadership to coordinate collaboration between governments and industry

For governments, scientific organisations and industry associations – form a government-

allied longitudinal research mechanism with scientific organisations (such as the CSIRO)

and industry professional associations, in order to provide solid cost-benefit data of


For sustainability consultants – encourage interaction among different stakeholders

through their knowledge of meeting various needs


6.4.2 Regulatory Enforcement – the Driving Force

The second level of the mutual benefit framework (shown in the bottom left

column of the framework in Figure 6.4) highlights the regulatory and institutional

issues in sustainable housing development. This level constitutes the initial driving

power of the framework. It is comprised of an effective regulatory mechanism, an

incentive system, reliable cost-benefit data and a consistent nationwide rating tool. In

fact, level 2 represents the four essential components of a holistic code for


A sound combination of regulatory factors, in the so-called top-down approach,

is a necessary trigger for positive cycle for sustainable housing development before

mainstream market buy-in occurs. This viewpoint is in line with the ‘managed

market’ theory developed in sustainability Victoria Report. The reported argue that

the government initiated regulatory mechanism combined with funding awarded on a

competitive basis could help set boundaries of desired outcome in the market. This

‘managed market’ approach is extremely important to assist innovation grow and

become ‘mainstream’. It may even remain effective after innovation has become

mainstream, particularly for sectors that require substantial upfront capital

investment and where benefits for consumers may only be realised in the long term,

such as housing industry (Sustainability Victoria, 2011).

However, one fundamental argument has been that regulatory attempts to

promote housing sustainability typically fail because for-profit businesses could not

engage with government regulations in commercial terms. Broader explanation of the

underlying benefits of government mandates seems to be needed to motivate the

delivery side. The question for the government agencies and the whole housing

industry then becomes: Should the government simply mandate housing

sustainability, or change people’s behaviour via education programs? In fact, both

actions are essential to stimulate the uptake of housing sustainability. This finding

was supported by previous research on sustainable housing innovators by Gregoire

(2010).

On one hand, mandated rating tools expedite the process of mainstream uptake

because they lead to increased market scale by putting every stakeholder on the same

level of playing field. An example is manufacturers being more confident to invest in

the capacity of sustainable production will lead to mainstream suppliers might


following the ‘sustainable’ trend. This increased market scale will link back to the

advancement of R&D and add extra value to the supply chain. On the other hand,

education is also needed as a means to communicate the value created in the

technology and design R&D. This approach will stimulate consumers’ and

practitioners’ voluntary uptake and in turn to increase market demand and market

scale.

In fact, the above discussed value-adding process via increased market scale

and the corresponding advance in technology and design R&D constitutes the term

“economies of scale” in microeconomics. According to Spencer (2009), economy of

scale is the key determinant in the market mainstreaming of any new product.

Spencer further pointed out seven reasons for internal economies of scale to occur:

lower input costs

efficient technology

research and development

access to finance

marketing

specialisation of labour and

earning by doing.

While all these reasons were covered in various levels of the mutual benefit

framework, “access to finance” stands out in the case of sustainable housing

development. This is because, to date, access to finance still remains to be only

achieved through government investment rather than via private financial lenders. In

fact, previous case studied indicated that inadequate financial support before market

demand develops, more than often, is the cause of the ‘valley of death’ between the

demonstration and full market uptake of any innovation (Sustainability Victoria,

2011). Therefore, the inclusion of an incentive system to reward production of

sustainable housing, such as a tax reduction scheme, will bring down the cost of

sustainable housing and enhance its market scale.

A further problem to ‘economies of scale’ for sustainable housing is that a

reliable cost-benefit database is consistently lacking. A government-funded scientific

program would be the best aid in this regard as it could also sponsor the R&D of


cutting edge technology and undertake design simultaneously, which is the actual

value-adding activity. The cost-benefit database and the rating tool represent the two

dimensions that define housing sustainability. As a result, they together constitute the

language that communicates housing sustainability performance and knowledge.

Although the Australian federal government has implemented incremental

measures in promoting performances of the four factors on this level, each factor has

room for improvement. A breakdown action guide for each factor is summarised in

the following text boxes.

Action Guide for

Effective Regulatory Mechanism


The cornerstone of mandatory rating

tools and incentive systems

Critical challenge to direct policy takers

such as developers and builders

A matter of government choice regarding

their budgets for housing sustainability

Insufficient financial and human

resources input from the government

Different industry and government

organisations disconnect with one another

and generate parallel policies to ensure

their executive power

Recommendations

For governments – establish a streamlined regulatory mechanism. Specifically, local

governments could take the role of policymaking for their close interaction with local

industry associations and their knowledge of the local climate. The federal government

can facilitate communication and align policies made by local governments to ensure

consistency

For governments – increase the involvement of the ULDA, other industry associations

and the scientific community in code making, due to their knowledge advantage over

government officials

For policy makers – make regulations more flexible to allow a variety of fulfilments, with

interchangeable measuring indicators of sustainability.


Action Guide for

Incentive System


Direct approach to reallocate the

environmental capital and maximise

mutual benefits

Strongly boost motivations of direct

policy takers such as developers and

builders

Assist cost-benefit research

Current incentives lack solidarity and

therefore fairness

Current incentives lack clear executive

structure

Insufficient input from governments to

translate brand recognition to competitive

advantage

Recommendations

For government – establish a funding system through public funds or through

collaboration with financial institutions

For government – introduce reward systems (fiscal and other favourable policies such

as fast-tracking the process of sustainable developments, or allowing more units in a

given acre) for developers, consumers, and upper supply chains such as manufacturers

who take financial risks, so the benefits could be passed down

For government – consider tax deductions on sustainable housing as a direct stimulus

instead of rebates, particularly for builders who take technical risk in applying

innovative technologies and design

For developers – remunerate their designers /architects and sustainability consultants

for their innovative design based on a percentage share of the lifetime savings

(considering both the initial cost uplift and economic savings in a building’s lifecycle)

they contribute to a project, rather than a percentage of the total value, which could

fully exert the expertise of ‘early adaptors’

For professional industry associations such as HIA – take leadership to monitor and

regulate the incentive system, due to their industry knowledge

For governments and industry associations – apply political conviction, for example

putting a premium price for renewable energy, and the to-be-implemented carbon tax.


Action Guide for

Cost-Benefit Data


Fundamental factor in solving the “who

pays for what, and when” puzzle

Crucial to stakeholder education and

communication

Paves the way for implementing

mandatory rating tools

Insufficient methodology to measure the

cost-benefit data of integrated design

Lack of longitudinal data tracking

individual technology and design in a

housing’s lifespan

Lack of quantitative data

Recommendations

For governments, scientific organisations and industry associations – develop a research

regime tracking longitudinal data through collaboration

For the research regime – establish an integrated knowledge hub

For policymakers and the scientific community – develop a consumer-friendly measuring

tool and language to interpret rating tools via collaboration. For example, a symbolic

communication for hard-to-quantify data could be promoted to facilitate consumers to

better understand benefits

For the research regime – use demonstrative projects to assist research and development

Action Guide for

Rating Tools


Define housing sustainability

Align the sustainable practice of various

stakeholders

Direct and initial factors of escalating

market scale

Simplistic rating system failing to address

the real value of sustainability behind

“stars” for stakeholders

Lack of flexibility in requirements

Inconsistent and parallel tools

Lack of post-construction assessment

Recommendations


Pursue a consistent national tool with due consideration of regional climate by

collaboration between government and the GBCA

Develop a translatable language to link mandatory requirements with tangible cost-benefit

data by collaboration between government and the scientific community

For policy makers – allow flexibility in the rating system based on the solid cost-benefit

data

For policy makers – create a consumer package including a post-construction assessment

system such as an integrated meter, a symbolic communicative tool and sustainability

disclosure upon resale with the involvement of government, industry and building

certifiers.

6.4.3 Research &Development and Knowledge Diffusion – the Core Creative Force

Level 3 of the mutual benefit framework (shown in the bottom middle column

in Figure 6.4) includes technology and design R&D, professional re-education and

up-scaling and public education and awareness. These three factors are defined as

core components of sustainable housing development because they together

materialise the original value-adding process.

Specifically, sound strategies on level 2 will increase the professional skills of

industry practitioners, which in turn will contribute to improved technology and

design R&D. Serving as the original value-adding activity, the advancement in

technology and design will eventually create benefits for the housing supply chain.

More importantly, the created value will be reinforced through programs that

enhance professional education and up-scaling as well as public awareness, which

join in constituting the knowledge dissemination of housing sustainability. As

discussed in the previous section, educational processes contributes to market

demand and therefore assists in the mainstreaming of sustainable housing if credible

cost-benefit data could be effectively communicated. In fact, increased public

education and awareness (the core approach) creates geometric effects in influencing

market demand, and has always been a stronger power than regulatory factors (the

top-down approach) in boosting the market scale. For example, if consumers are well

educated about the rules and subsequently demand what they want from the builders,

this has a stronger effect on market uptake than legislating the builders. However, the

progress of this educational process normally takes more time than regulations before


quantum leap occurs. As one interviewee pointed out, “Sustainable housing to the

housing industry is like organic food to the food industry. Even if people realise the

advantages of having organic food, they cannot rule out other food before a new

paradigm is established though generational education”.

It is interesting to find that the educational factors, technology and design R&D

and the cost-benefit data form a self-enforced loop as shown in Figure 6.7. Any

positive input (driving force) into a certain point of the loop will be passed down to

the other two factors and iterate positive changes, and vice versa. Therefore,

successful implementation of the factors on this level could bridge government

regulations and market demand by translating innovative sustainability practices into

tangible value for industry and consumers. A breakdown action guide of each factor

is summarised in the following text boxes.

Action Guide for

Professional Re-education & Up-Scaling


Linkage between consumer awareness,

cutting edge technologies and

corresponding cost-benefit data

Lack of common language and integrated

information sources

The project-based nature of construction

hinders continual knowledge

accumulation

No guidelines or criteria beyond energy-

efficiency regulations

Big learning curve for builders

Recommendations

For governments, scientific organisations and industry associations – establish an online

knowledge hub for current sustainable technologies and products and design

For government – collaborate, via the department of education or ULDA, with industry

associations (e.g. HIA, MBA, AIA, and Queensland Property Associates) or universities

and TAFE colleges to provide professional education beyond regulation, based on

successful high-end sustainable projects

Government, industry associations, and the scientific community to provide specific and

intensive training for builders


Figure 6.7. Self-enforced loop 1

Action Guide for



A significant challenge to market demand

Help prevent green washing

Fragmented information sources of

sustainable practices without scientific

details

Lack of quantitative cost-benefit data

Controversial media coverage on both

the downside and upside of sustainability

Recommendations

For governments, scientific organisations and industry associations – establish an online

knowledge hub that provides major specifications and expected benefits in quantitative

form

For governments – mandate an “education and reward” package for home buyers

For industry – participate in face-to-face public education

For developers and real estate agents – refine marketing strategies, such as promoting

community-based social marketing, to enhance sustainable housing uptake.


Action Guide for



Original value-adding activities of

sustainable housing development

Decisive contributor to cost-benefit data

Key factor contributing to economies of

scale

Poorly integrated, long-term design due

to for-profit business chasing short-term

benefit

Technologies struggle to achieve uptake

beyond regulation

Lack of consideration of various climates

Builders hinder implementation due to

the high technical risk

Recommendations

Establish an experiment lab via collaboration between government, industry and the

scientific community

Demonstrate cutting-edge technologies through public projects based on collaboration

between government, big contributing developers, suppliers and the scientific community

Introduce government or developer-sponsored incentives to builders for those taking

technical risks in applying innovative technologies and design

Introduce government-sponsored incentives to developers for better community planning

6.4.4 Market Adaptation – the Ultimate Indicator

In the bottom right column of the mutual benefit framework in Figure 6.4, level

4 reflects the market characteristics of sustainable housing. It includes four

dependent yet decisive factors that ultimately indicate the mainstreaming of

sustainable housing: market demand, market scale, cost issues, and mitigating green

washing. This market adaptation process has limited creative force itself. For

example, it would be unrealistic for end users to ask for ten-star housing in terms of

the level of energy efficiency accredited by the Building Code of Australia in the

first place, because the supply side has not presented anything for consumers to feel

and understand. However, factors on this level could be driven by higher-up levels,


and create momentum to keep circulating towards the market escalation of

sustainable housing. Specifically, as shown in Figure 6.8, market scale, market

demand, and cost issues form another self-enforced loop. The exterior positive power

input to any point in the loop will create momentum within the system towards a

positive cycle, and vice versa. In other words, providing the successful

implementations of their higher-up factors, the market of sustainable housing is able

to reinforce itself.

Figure 6.8. Self-enforced loop 2

The significance of market scale should be highlighted in particular, because it

directly attributes to technical and design advances, and in turn leads to the key

indicator of market mainstream, that is, economies of scale. It also generates network

effects that increase investor’ confidence of incorporating sustainability into their

traditional practices. As shown in Figure 6.7, this key trigger of market

mainstreaming could be either regulatory actions (the top-down approach) or market

demand (the bottom-up approach). While the former is considered to be a quick fix,

the latter carries the stronger ultimate power. Case studies through sustainable

precincts in Australia also indicated that this bottom-up knowledge and information

barriers is the key challenge in moving the current sustainable housing development

from ‘demonstration pre-commercial’ to ‘commercial mainstream’ business model

(Sustainability Vitoria, 2011). However, as discussed in the previous section, market

demand is dependent on the improvement of the educational system, and takes a long


time to achieve significant change. Therefore, concerted efforts in relation to these

two triggers to escalate market scale will drive the self-enforced loop into a positive

cycle for sustainable housing development.

Finally, the factors of cost issues and mitigating green washing residing at the

bottom of the framework will consecutively solve itself once other factors are

resolved. In particular, the cost issue has been rated as the foremost challenge due to

the market immaturity, lack of developers’ and builders’ confidence and professional

skills, and lack of incentives. However, its solution is dependent on strategies

including government-centred and developer-centred collaboration, systematic

incentives, professional consultancy and a sound marketing strategy, which have all

been dealt with through critical factors on the first three levels. Similarly, pressure

from green washing will be alleviated as soon as cost issues are tackled, education is

in place, and a consumer-friendly rating tool is established.

6.5 SUMMARY

This chapter identified a hierarchical mutual benefit framework of sustainable

housing implementation for key stakeholders through Interpretive Structural

Modelling. Four levels of CFAMBs were distinguished based on their

interdependency and driving force, that is, the prerequisite, the driving force, the core

power and the ultimate indicator. An action guide was provided to seven key

stakeholders to explore coping with elements on each level through collaborative or

individual efforts. The resolutions of the higher-up factors in the hierarchy will help

tackle the other challenges and drive sustainable housing development into a positive

cycle where key stakeholders enhance their uptake through mutual benefits. In

particular, the framework identified the key indicator of mainstreaming sustainable

housing – market scale – and elaborated how top-down and bottom-up approaches

could be used to trigger this factor. Additionally, two self-enforced loops consisting

of several intersecting elements were identified. This dynamic attribute stimulates

iterative actions and emphasises a continual development viewpoint.


Chapter 7: Case Studies and Framework Finalisation 213

Chapter 7: Case Studies and Framework Finalisation

7.1 INTRODUCTION

A preliminary mutual-benefit framework was established via Interpretive

Structural Modelling (Chapter 6) based on the synthesised result of a questionnaire

survey (Chapter 4) and an interview study (Chapter 5). The framework outlines the

interdependency and fundamental principles of 12 critical factors of achieving

mutual benefits (CFAMB) for key stakeholders to promote sustainable housing

development. The 12 elements call for implementation under a four-level structure

based on their mutual driving power and dependence. The four levels are: innovative

collaboration (the prerequisite); regulatory enforcement (the driving force); R&D and

knowledge diffusion (the core creative force); and market adaptation (the ultimate

indicator).

This chapter examines the applicability of the mutual-benefit framework in two

housing developments. The extent to which these two projects embody the principles

of the framework is assessed, and the strategies that could further enforce the

successful implementation of the framework are explored. By explaining why certain

elements of the framework tend to be of more practical help in real-life projects, and

why others may not, this chapter concludes with a finalised mutual-benefit

framework, and a discussion about how it affects the likelihood of sustainable

housing development in the future.

7.2 CASE STUDY DESIGN

As stated in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.5), it is ideal for the examination of the

research instruments and data analysis procedures in mixed-method research such as

the current study to occur before the related results are discussed, rather than in the

methodology chapter. This approach avoids disruption of the logical flow within

each method. This section thus presents a detailed description of the survey

instrument design and relevant data analysis techniques, and presents a subsequent

discussion of the results.

214 Chapter 7: Case Studies and Framework Finalisation

There are several essential components for researchers to consider in case

studies according to Yin (2009) and Baxter and Jack (2008). They are:

Purpose (question) of the study

Unit of analysis

Design types

Selection of cases

Research proposition for the case study, if any

Data collection and analysis procedures, and the logical link to the

propositions.

The first four aspects determine the nature and the boundary of the case study,

whereas the last two components closely relate to the validity and trustworthiness of

the research. The following sections examine the six aspects of the case study design

in detail.

7.2.1 Case Study Purpose

The case study in this research attempts to address the following purposes:

To examine to what extent the mutual-benefit framework is applicable in

real-life projects

To explore strategies that could further enforce the successful

implementation of the framework

7.2.2 Unit of Analysis

Case studies involve the systematic gathering of facts about an individual,

group, social setting or event to permit the researcher to effectively understand how

it operates or functions (Berg, 2001). The study object, or the case, is actually the

unit of analysis (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Yin (2009) defined two types of case studies

based on the unit of analysis. If research is concerned only with one unit of analysis

as a whole, then this falls into the category of a holistic case study. If the researcher

wishes to examine logical sub-units with the selected higher-up unit, this study

would be defined as an embedded case study (Yin, 2009). For this research, the

mutual-benefit framework involves the industry, project and corporate organisation

of the key stakeholders. A major unit of analysis at the housing project level is


chosen, as it appeared to be the best approach to link industry trends with

organisational practices. However, the analysis of collaboration strategies inevitably

touches on the practices of stakeholder organisations. Therefore, the case studies in

this research are embedded case studies.

7.2.3 Design Types of Case Study

Based on various needs of the researchers, there are several appropriate designs

for case studies. Yin (2009) generalised three types of case studies: (a) exploratory;

(b) explanatory and (c) descriptive. Merriam (1998) categorised case studies into

descriptive, interpretive and evaluative types. Table 7.1 summarises the nature of

these different types of case studies.

Table 7.1 Comparison of Case Study Design Types

Design type Key features

Exploratory

Aims to define the research question and form hypotheses

Especially useful as a pilot study for a problem that has not been

clearly defined

Descriptive

Presents a detailed picture of the phenomena but does not attempt

to test or build theoretical models

Requires an upfront descriptive theory to guide the collection of

data

The intention is to gain a better understanding of the present

status and pave the way for subsequent theory building

Explanatory

Tries to explain a course of events and relate how things happen

Largely used in complex studies of organisations or communities,

where the intention is to employ multivariate cases to scrutinise a

plurality of influences

Interpretive Interprets the data in an effort to classify and conceptualise the

information and perhaps theorise about the phenomena

Evaluative

Evaluates the merit of some practice, program, movement or

event

Also involves description and interpretation


Based on the above articulation and the elements in the preliminary mutual-

benefit framework, the most applicable type of design for this research can be

identified. The evaluative case study is the type of research that would best apply.

7.2.4 Selection of Cases

Researchers can select either a single case or multiple cases to conduct the data

collection and analysis. A single case study normally highlights the critical, unique

or unprecedented nature of the chosen case in confirming or challenging a theory; it

therefore requires careful justification of the choice to avoid misrepresentation

(Baxter & Jack, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009). A multiple case study, on the other

hand, follows the logic of generalisation with the attempt to establish whether the

findings of the first case are replicable in other cases. It is often preferable to a single

case study, because it allegedly strengthens the results by replicating the pattern-

matching and increasing confidence in the robustness of the theory (Baxter & Jack,

2008; Saunders et al., 2009). Considering the embedded and evaluative nature of this

case study, the selection of two cases (namely, the multiple case approach) appears to

be appropriate to supplement the evaluative process of each case and optimise the

power of comparison without the disadvantage of diluting the analysis (Turcotte,

2007).

Berg (2001) argued that the case selection criteria should reflect the research

proposition or problem statement to ensure the case attributes yield relevant data.

This study thus established the following criteria of case selection:

The case projects should have a sustainability agenda to reflect elements in

the framework. However, the business and development models of these

two projects should vary in order to prevent bias to support the utility of

the sustainability mindset.

The case projects should be based on two geographically different regions

of Australia, in order to assist the generalisation of the result across the

nation.

The case projects should have been developed during the past ten-year

period in order allow the research to capture the current trends.

Based on the above discussion, FC in Queensland (developed since 2008) and

CW in South Australia (developed 2001-2006) were selected, each based on a


different business model with a varied focus on sustainability. For confidentiality

purposes, abbreviations are used in this chapter for the names of projects and project-

related organisations.

According to research by Sustainability Victoria (2011), there are generally

four business models for a housing project with sustainable features:

1. Demonstration and pre-commercial stage: These projects often achieve

high levels of innovation with additional costs associated with

sustainability features covered through public subsidy/grants/funding.

2. Supported commercial stage: Although these projects still require

significant government or committed investor support, a greater proportion

of the funding comes from the business opportunity.

3. Commercial-niche stage: Projects demonstrate relative commercial

viability by capitalising on a niche, with a minimal level of government

involvement. However, commercial returns often still play a secondary

role to the commitment to achieving best sustainable practice.

4. Commercial-mainstream stage: These projects are designed to demonstrate

the feasibility of sustainable urban development on a large scale, providing

a housing project with mass-market appeal and integration of social and

environmental sustainability.

FC is a project at the commercial-mainstream stage. It is focused on a large-

scale, for-profit development that aims to achieve a balance between commercial

returns, affordability and sustainability. It reflects the common perceptions and

practices of mainstream development and in turn cross-checks with exemplar

sustainable housing. It is also a demonstration of balance between sustainable

practices and the commercial viability associated with the acceptance of mainstream

consumers.

On the other hand, CW is at the commercial-niche stage. It provides an

illustration of the possibility of incorporating cutting-edge sustainable practices into

housing by a passionate group of individuals who are not driven by profit

motivations. With its strong sustainability focus, this “eco-village” helps explore the

frontier of current sustainable housing development and provides a reference for

pioneers in the industry. The value of this project is derived from the ground-


breaking social and environmental outcomes of the project, rather than achieving

commercial returns.

7.2.5 Procedures of Data Collection and Analysis

Yin (2009) pointed out that a case study is a “microscopic” method because it

only draws conclusions from a small participant pool. Hamel et al. (1993) also

argued that the relative size of the sample, regardless of whether 2, 10, or 100 cases

are used, does not transform a multiple case into a macroscopic study. Regardless of

the number of cases, what is more important is whether the research implementation

can meet the established objective. In this regard, a clear analytic strategy that links

the data collection and analysis process with the objective is critical for ensuring the

research credibility and rigor (Hamel et al., 1993). Similar to other qualitative study

methods, the data collection and analysis processes normally occur concurrently

(Baxter & Jack, 2008). Yin (2009) generalised several strategies to guide the whole

process: pattern-matching, linking data to propositions, explanation building, time-

series analysis, logic models and cross-case synthesis.

Considering the evaluative nature of this case study in testing the developed

framework, pattern-matching is selected as the major analytic strategy. It compares

the empirical patterns identified in real-life cases with the predicted patterns, which

in this particular research, are the significance, interdependency and action guides of

the twelve elements in the preliminary framework presented in Chapter 6 (Figure

6.5). Collected data will be clustered into categories representing a specific element

or interdependency and corresponding action guides. Validity of the framework will

be enhanced when the predicted patterns coincide with the empirical findings.

The efficacy of an evaluative case study such as this research relies highly on

the competence of the researcher in using available information to make judgments

(Guba & Lincoln, 1981). According to Stake (1995) and Yin (2009), case studies

mainly derive data and information from six sources of evidence:

Documents

Archival records

Interviews

Direct observation


Participant-observation

Physical artefacts.

These data collection techniques are often employed in combination to form a

triangulation in pursuit of credibility (Saunders et al., 2009; Yin, 2009). Based on the

specific goal of this research to explore the housing development process in terms of

sustainability, the researcher adopted the multiple data and evidence gathering

techniques of data analysis and interview.

Document analysis: Document analysis helps researchers to make inferences

about events and serves to strengthen evidence from other sources (Yin, 2009). In

this study, documents include development schemes, administrative documents,

sustainability reports, available studies, newsletters and media articles about the

development processes, and other project documents related to matters such as

supply chain management. The document collection process involves identifying

related web sources via Google, and requesting written documentation from

interviewees.

Interview approach: Interviews are an important source of information for a

case study. Using open-ended questions in this study, the researcher focused on

individuals’ perceptions of how the current mutual-benefit framework helps to

promote sustainable housing development, and their recommended strategies to

relieve the obstructions (if any) to a successful implementation of the framework.

Since data could not be gathered on all the people and activities in the case, a

purposive “snowball” sampling of the interviewees was conducted, with a major

focus on developers, project managers, sustainability consultants, architects and local

government officers. Table 7.2 shows the details of the nine interviewees who

participated in the case studies.

Each interview was conducted in two steps:

Step 1: Identify and examine the elements reflected in the development

Was the element actually implemented in the construction process?

What were the results?

Did the action guide and hierarchical significance of this element

solve the practical problem in some way? If not, what would you

recommend to improve the element?


Table 7.2 Interviewee profiles in the case studies

Role in project Organisation

characteristic Interview mode

FC project

Development Manager Developer Face to face/Email

Project Management Officer Developer Face-to-face

Construction Manager Building Company Face-to-face

Sustainability Consultant Developer Face-to-face

CW project

Architect/Developer Architect Firm Telephone

Planning & Design Manager Building Company Telephone

Project

Coordinator/Sustainability

Consultant

Consulting Firm Telephone /Email

Step 2: Examine the elements that were not included in the development

scheme

To what extent would this element (and its related hierarchical

significance and action guide) be helpful or applicable in promoting

real-life sustainable housing projects?

What modification of the element would you recommend to increase

its applicability for promoting real-life sustainable housing?

It should be noted that certain information, especially the financial

arrangements of the two projects, was not always made available to the researcher.

This restricted the scope of the analysis somewhat; however, most interviewees

shared a vast range of pertinent information that helped achieve the objectives of the

case study.

7.3 CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section aligns the case study findings with each of the 12 critical factors of

achieving mutual benefits (CFAMB) that were identified in the preliminary mutual-

benefit framework. After introducing the project background of each case

development, the findings are presented structurally under four levels of


implementation; namely, innovative collaboration (the prerequisite) regulatory

enforcement (the driving force), R&D and knowledge diffusion (the core creative

force), and market adaptation (the ultimate indicator). It should be noted that due to

the individuality of each case project in terms of sustainability agenda, not all the

CFAMBs were acted upon and reflected within a single case. However, the selection

of two case projects allows for supplementary intra-case analysis, which leads to

synthesised and inclusive results.

7.3.1 Application of Framework to the FC Project

7.3.1.1 Background Information about the FC Project

The FC development is located 14km north of the Brisbane CBD, covering 114

hectares of land. The site area is bounded by a school district to the south, a main

road to the north, Brisbane’s main north/south rail corridor to the west and an

existing community to the east, as shown in Figure 7.1 (photo sourced from the

official FC planning scheme).

Figure 7.1. Master plan of the FC project


The development area was declared by regulation by the Minister for

Infrastructure and Planning in July 2008. The developer of the FC project is a

statutory authority that engages in the development of urban development areas with

due commercial viability, affordability and ecological sustainability. Through the

development scheme, the developer aimed to promote liveable communities,

maximise economic returns for stakeholders, and maintain a high level of ecological

excellence.

As of December 2011, the first six out of ten stages of development have been

completed and stage 7 is under construction. With the lot sizes ranging from 60m2

up to 800m2, the FC development accommodates six different housing types: low-

rise apartments, detached villas, loft apartments, integrated townhouses, lowset

quadplex and freehold terraces (as shown in Figure 7.2, photos sourced from FC

official website). On completion, the FC community will provide between 1,200 and

1,500 homes across 10 stages. The following sections present the lessons learnt from

the development team’s endeavour to leverage sustainable practices and stakeholder

mutual benefits.

7.3.1.2 Findings on Innovative Collaboration

A vision of collaboration and partnership was included in the planning scheme

of the FC residential development to ensure the sustainable principles could be

successfully incorporated with minimal impact on cost and time. The developer

highlighted the significance of integrating the detailed design principles and

methodologies early in the planning stages and working closely with builder partners

and contractors. The Development Manager indicated that they outlined the

requirements for the sustainability elements with the builders upfront, with the aid of

consultation from industry associations such as the UDIA; the builders then went

through a new learning curve and discussed the detailed application with their

suppliers. As the FC Development Manager explained:

“I guess the builders have to change the suppliers and hold a lot of work

they need to do up front to get the right sustainability elements into the

building packages, but that is a one off process they have to go through,

once they did that negotiation with their suppliers, they just roll out the

current elements they have now. It is in the builder’s planning stage that is

important.”


(a) Core apartment

(b) Freehold terraces

(c) Loft apartment

(d) Integrated townhouse

(e) Detached villas

(f) Lowset quadplex

(g) Interior design

(h) Multi-functional backyard

Figure 7.2. FC community


Through such early stage collaboration, the builders of the FC project realised

there could be very limited extra cost or even no extra cost at all to achieve

sustainable objectives in relation to the ecosystems, waste, energy, materials, water

and community. This reduced the cost premiums that would otherwise be added to

the project by builders unfamiliar with the sustainability requirements. Although

additional time and effort is spent on the learning curve, this is often a one-off

process. The new skills acquired by the builder could be incorporated into their

design and used in other sustainable development projects in the future.

The development team also commented on the collaboration model of key

stakeholders in implementing sustainability in housing projects (shown in Figure 6.5

in Chapter 6). The interviewees generally believed that the scientific community

plays a secondary role compared to government. This is because the scientific

community is not always involved in the policymaking. They work with industry

associations in communicating the sustainability regulations between government

and the industry practitioners, and providing related strategies.

The FC development team emphasised the distinctive roles of industry

associations. Industry associations integrate the knowledge to smaller builders and

developers who do not have the resources and time to research sustainable

innovations. In particular, the FC Construction Manager pointed out that the

residential market often involves projects of smaller scale. Builders in the residential

market tend to be smaller companies who cannot afford to involve architects; these

builders often have their own drafting staff. As a result, architects and designers do

not have much influence in the residential housing market. Interviewees in the FC

case study also pointed out that only those developers who aim to achieve the best

practice would bring sustainability consultants on board. Even when they do, these

consultants mostly coordinate among government agencies, developers and industry

associations – not builders. Therefore, builders largely rely on the industry

associations to present the benchmark and guidance.

However, the Sustainability Consultant of FC development pointed out that

industry associations are unlikely to champion sustainable housing beyond what has

been mandated by regulation nor coordinate collaborations unless governments fund

it:


“HIA only acts on issues its members feel are important. Also, HIA has a

pretty tight budget.”

In this regard, there is an argument that industry associations should, be funded

by government. The FC Construction Manager also distinguished the role of

developers from other stakeholders by stating:

“I don’t believe developers and other people are on the same level.

Developer is industry-driving business, they do what the government or

industry association says. Others do what developers have them do to make

cash flow and business work.”

Overall, the FC development team recommended a five-layer pyramid structure

for stakeholder collaboration as shown in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3. The recommended pyramid structure for stakeholder collaboration

7.3.1.3 Findings on Regulatory Enforcement

Rating Tools

Although the FC developer set a minimum 6-star energy rating requirement

following the Queensland Development Code (QDC) industry standard regulations,

they mainly rely on the UDIA industry group for setting the benchmark of

sustainable practices. For example, the Development Manager pointed out that

several houses have already achieved 7-star and 8-star energy ratings, but only in

relation to thermo mass, which is only a small part of their sustainable practices.

Instead, the FC development aimed to achieve the UDIA EnviroDevelopment

1

2

3

4

5

Government

Industry Association & Scientific Community

Developer

Other Housing Industry Practitioner

Consumer


certification by addressing broader sustainability issues in relation to ecosystems,

waste, energy, materials, water and community.


The FC developer conducts regular audits on the builders to ensure the builders

comply with design guidelines. They also fund “the Economix Indicator” for all

homes built from stage 3 as a post-construction assessment device for consumers.

The device forecasts the energy and carbon demand for homes based on appliance

choices, and provides the client with a reference document to help choose the right

appliances and use them in the most energy efficient way. However, the development

team believes that a government-led comprehensive sustainability code is needed in

the long term. The Project Management Officer, for example, recommended an

initiative that echoes the longitudinal research mechanism proposed in the mutual-

benefit framework:

“In an ideal world, industry groups and government should work together to

set a benchmark. Scientific community should input into it.”

Incentive System

Although an incentive program to encourage design innovation was proposed

in the FC development scheme, this plan has not been implemented in the FC

development to date. However, two other incentives are provided for sustainability

initiatives. The first incentive is the stormwater harvest tank and the roof system.

They are funded by the federal government and the Japanese government for the

purpose of testing those new technologies, so the builders could make savings that

are used for other measures. In addition, the Project Management Officer indicated

that the FC community benefited from fast approval timeframes, with a 40-day

timeframe given for its sustainable building practice. This highlighted the potential

for planning authorities and developers to see mutual benefit in sustainability

solutions.

It is interesting to note that the Development Manager expressed the view that

the incentive system is not necessary:

“As soon as you give government incentives, they are not changing their

business for the better. Once you go through the process, you realise it is not

costing extra, why do we need reward.”


Cost-Benefit Data

With regard to the significance of solid cost-benefit data, all four interviewees

in the FC case study reinforced that data is an indispensable yet poorly established

component of housing sustainability. The Development Manager further explained

that “the CSIRO does track cost-benefit data of a few sustainable technologies, but

they are not releasing as much data to the mainstream industry developers or builders

as they do to the other industries”. In terms of the criteria to assess the cost-benefit

data, developers would look to the industry associations who have done their

research and created a set of standards.

7.3.1.4 Findings on Research and Development and Knowledge Diffusion

Technologies and Design R&D

The FC project incorporated a series of sustainable measures beyond the QDC

standard against six criteria in the UDIA EnviroDevelopment program as shown in

Table 7.3. These practices created an energy usage reduction of up to 45% and water

usage reduction of up to 55%.

Table 7.3 Implemented Sustainable Practices in FC Development

Category Sustainable Practices

Ecosystem

retention

Site analysis to identify flora, fauna, hydrological and landscape

characteristics

Maintained and enhanced buffer zones to reduce fragmentation

through development zones, wildlife corridors and fauna crossings

Incorporated best practice Water Sensitive Urban Design

principles by designing central bio-retention swales, bio-retention

ponds, stormwater detention basins and maximising low-lying

parkland to mitigate flood waters in peak times

Controlled the amount of non-permeable pavements through sizing

requirements in the project’s design guidelines and encouraging

the use of permeable surfaces throughout

Implemented a weed and pest management strategy to control

invasive plant species


Encouraged and controlled plant varieties and prohibited invasive

species by including a detailed plant list

Propagated native species

Waste

Construction waste is taken to an on-site recycling plant and re-

used on site wherever possible

Cleared vegetation and topsoil were reused on-site

Building partners reduce off-cuts through design management (i.e.

maximising standard product sizes)

Every dwelling is provided with a compost bin to compost green

waste

Energy

All dwellings to achieve a minimum of 6-star energy rating,

reducing demand for heating and cooling

Ceiling fans are installed in all bedrooms to reduce the dependence

on air-conditioning

A minimum of 450mm eaves on eastern and western windows to

maximise solar orientation and passive design

Renewable energy encouraged with no restriction on positioning

5-star instantaneous gas or gas-boosted solar hot water systems

required

100% energy efficient lighting and energy efficient appliances

Materials

A minimum of 40% materials in civil and site works are to be from

a recycled or reused source, including recycled aggregate used

under road bases and green concrete

A minimum of 20% of building materials are recycled, recyclable

or otherwise environmentally responsible

Requirements for low voc paints, adhesives and floor coverings

Water

All detached dwelling in stages 1 and 2 to have 5000L or 3000L

rainwater tanks for toilets, laundry and external taps

Stage 3 onwards were serviced with recycled water through the

Fitzgibbon Stormwater Harvesting


Stage 6 onwards were serviced with the large-scale rainwater

harvesting system (the PotaRoo system)

4-star WELS fittings installed in kitchens, bathrooms and laundries

4-star dual flush toilet systems

4-star flow restrictors on taps

Public spaces designed to require minimal irrigation

Community

Development of a range of housing types including assessable and

universal designs

Consultation with neighbouring and traditional stakeholders,

including preparation of a comprehensive community consultation

plan

Incorporation of “crime prevention through environmental design”

principles

Establishment of community and recreational infrastructure by

providing more than 40 hectares of parks and green space for

residents

Design, construction, operation and maintenance providing 127

jobs

These practices were possible in the FC development due to the project’s

relatively higher density. The development team, however, reinforced the gap

between the technology integration employed in the residential building market and

in the commercial building market. The Development Manager commented that:

“Office building and domestic has completely different typologies. We look

at single scale buildings rather than office building where once piece of

facilities can serve 30 levels. In a house, it only serves one house.”

By comparison, builders in the office construction market are relatively bigger

companies and have the resources to look closely at different options. Consequently,

the QDC mandated six-star residential building is some years away in terms of the

sustainable technologies, compared to a Green Star six-star commercial building.


In addition, as the Sustainability Consultant pointed out, housing prices in

Australia have remained at a high level for the past few years. This means the

demand for sustainability has been compromised by the demand for housing

affordability.

To deal with the above issues, the interviewees believe it is easier for this

industry to look for technology that current exists in the commercial building market,

rather than create technologies for themselves. Furthermore, the cooperative efforts

of the governments, industry associations, scientific community and upstream

suppliers are needed to further promote precinct-scale developments such as the FC

project so as to prioritise the integrated infrastructure.

Professional Education & Up-Scaling

The FC development reportedly provided sustainability-related training

opportunities for 51 construction and landscaping practitioners from a variety of

agencies and job providers. The developer also delivered a demonstrative zero-

energy building on Lot 16 with the assistance of two contributing builders. However,

the development team found it difficult to engage stakeholders on sustainable

practices through random sustainable housing projects, even though they believe the

learning curve is largely a one-off process. An easy-to-apply template should be

provided rather than intensive training by governments and industry associations,

especially to builders.


One salient feature of the FC development is that the development created a

sense of community, or “the making of a place”, through transit-oriented

development (TOD). TOD describes a kind of community that has a centre with a

transit station, surrounded by relatively high-density development with progressively

lower-density development spreading outward from the centre. The FC project

demonstrates a desire to create a mix of uses and services within the middle-density

to high-density precinct to allow residents to live, work and socialise locally, thus

reducing the need for excessive travel. This approach supports the marketing strategy

of creating an attractive community-based lifestyle, which is an important finding in

the mutual-benefit framework. The cycling path in the park was also seen as creating

important health benefits and increasing social interaction, although these social aims

and values have yet to be translated into monetary terms. This is in line with the


mutual-benefit framework finding that sustainability could bear symbolic meaning to

consumers and still provide qualitative change to the way people live.

The interviewees, in general, highlight the lack of reliable cost-benefit data as a

major barrier to knowledge diffusion on both the supply and demand side, although

other reasons such as lack of experience, different cultures, and limited resources

also contribute to the unsuccessful delivery of sustainability. This viewpoint supports

the finding in the mutual-benefit framework that a cost-benefit database plays a

profound role in driving the development of other relevant technical and cultural

factors.

7.3.1.5 Findings on Market Adaptation

Cost Issues and Market Demand

Based on the early stage of collaboration and TOD-based integrated design as

discussed in the earlier sections, cost issues were not considered as a major challenge

for the FC developers. The development team believes consumers should not pay

more for sustainable features because the supply side should internalise the extra cost

as they did. The Development Manager noted that, as a result, the sales record was

exceptionally good:

“The housing designs have proved very popular and all stages in FC have

sold out ahead of completion. Two thirds of these dwellings were sold at or

below the median Brisbane house price.”

The Development Manager agreed with the finding that market demand in the

end is the ultimate trigger to the economies of scale, but this consumer education has

not entered the market yet:

“If the consumers are demanding for sustainable practices, the builders will

take the initiative to go to the industry association to look for solutions. It is

not happening yet, but I will come one day.”

Currently, mainstreaming sustainability into the housing industry mostly needs

to come from the government regulation and the resulting supply side practices. This

will be the initial driver for industry practitioners to incorporate sustainable practices

into their business model:


“If it is only a voluntary introduction, I think the builders would not charge.

Because they are not made to explore the options. Otherwise they find a way

to make sure it is handled in their businesses.”(Development Manager)

Market Scale

The FC Development Manager supported the viewpoint that increasing market

scale is the most important factor for sustainable housing development, and stated

that it should be further highlighted in the framework. The Development Manager

compared the current market adaptation of sustainability in the housing industry with

the market adaptation in the commercial building industry, and suggested a few

actions that might be replicated to promote market scale for sustainable housing:

For commercial buildings, an official government body called Low Carbon

Australia provides funding to newly built commercial buildings with

sustainable features. An equivalent organisation is needed for the housing

industry to help developers and builders innovate without price rises.

The National Australian Built Environment Rating System for commercial

buildings entails a high level of consistency and does not allow “deemed to

comply” alternatives.

The mandatory energy disclosure scheme that elaborates the sustainability

information should be strictly implemented.

Since the progress payments and dollar value of commercial buildings is

much bigger than residential buildings, quantity surveyors are more

commonly used. The Property Council of Australia could use the data

from quantity surveyors to conduct case studies and establish cost-benefit

data.

Clients of commercial buildings normally run a business in the building, so

they care more about their operating cost and issues such as accessible

public transport.

The above suggestions reinforce the need to promote higher-density precinct-

scale development and enhance the consistency and efficiency of the regulatory

mechanism for housing industry. This viewpoint echoes with the research findings

on community planning in order to achieve better sustainable outcomes (Jieming,

2011; Schetke et al., 2012; Williams et al.).


7.3.2 Framework Application on CW Case Project

7.3.2.1 Background Information of the Project

CW is an urban housing development located in the Adelaide CBD (Figure 7.4,

photo sourced from the CW developer). This project was initiated by a passionate

group of individuals who collectively invested in a T-shaped block with the hope to

create their own eco-village to demonstrate what is possible. A cooperative approach

to development was therefore utilised, financed by a combination of debt and

personal capital. The aim of the development was to create mixed, medium-density

community housing that maximised lifestyle options and minimised environmental

impact for similar cost to conventional inner-urban development, with very low

energy bills.

Figure 7.4. Master plan of CW development

The project consists of 27 housing units, including four three-storey

townhouses with full solar orientation, a three-storey block of six apartments with


east-west orientation, four stand-alone cottages, and a 5-storey apartment block

(Figure 7.5, photos sourced from CW website). The construction took place in three

stages, which were respectively completed in 2002, 2004 and 2006. It also features a

communal garden, laundry, kitchen, meeting room, and library.

(a) 5-storey apartment

(b) 3-storey apartment

(c) Stand-alone cottage

(d) 3-storey townhouse

(e) Interior design

(f) Garden roof

Figure 7.5. CW community


7.3.2.2 Findings on Innovative Collaboration

One critical success factor of the CW development lies in the innovative

collaboration known as “cooperative membership” in its early stage. This

stakeholder-involved decision-making process was employed to create higher risk

tolerance and acceptance of the “sustainability premium”. A not-for-profit

cooperative developer, WRD, was formed to represent various clients in financing,

project management and cost control. The clients included first-time homebuyers,

investment purchasers, experienced homeowners seeking the advantages of an urban

lifestyle and older people wanting to retire in an active, mixed community. A for-

profit architectural firm, EPA, worked with WRD throughout the development.

Lessons learned from the community-based development process were adopted in a

joint venture approach between WRD and a private building company, ECC, in the

third stage of development, when a more directly managed and pragmatic basis was

adopted.

The cooperative development model entailed a powerful sense of community.

This underpinned its capacity to engage many people at many levels, each

establishing a stake in the ideas and processes of the development. The cooperative’s

members were closely involved throughout the development process, at times

contributing “hands-on” to construction. This echoes the proposition in the

framework that collaboration creates values and makes the whole work better than

the sum of the individuals. However, weaknesses derive from the same source,

resulting in more complicated and time-consuming decision-making and

management processes. Although the creation of independent entities enabled the

project to have clearly articulated roles and responsibilities, the project developer felt

that a stronger developer role or government initiation would be necessary to show

leadership and expedite the development process.

With regard to the roles of different stakeholders in sustainable housing

development, the CW developer highly regarded the collaboration framework and

specified how the stakeholder(s) are linked to each action guide in the mutual-benefit

framework:

“As an industry practitioner, I would like to see (1) how do the elements in

the framework fit in together; (2) where do I fit at the organisation level: (3)

what is my action plan. An action plan is nothing without a timeline and an


announcement of responsibility. I don’t think we can do it in academia on

the timeline, but we definitely recommend who to resort to. This is what I

like about the framework; stakeholders can use the action guides as a

working document.”

7.3.2.3 Findings on Regulatory Enforcement

Incentive System

Adopting the commercial-niche business model, the CW development received

initial funding from the development cooperative and under the favourable loan

policy of the-then Bendigo Community Bank. However, during the development

process between 2001 to 2006, the development team received little regulatory

support, which raised issues regarding how innovation can become mainstream

without government playing a more prominent role in sustainable design outcomes.

A report by Sustainability Victoria (2011) on the CW development indicated

that the increased opportunity cost is typical in projects that engage in any early-

stage innovation. More financial incentives (such as direct subsidies or tax credits)

and accelerated planning processes from government would make it possible to

accelerate the development process and reduce land holding costs so that it was

competitive with conventional development. The CW development team supported

this viewpoint and further stated that developers often are not capable of initiating

similar incentives for builders.


The Sustainability Consultant of the CW project pointed out that one historical

issue affecting policies in Australia’s housing industry is the geographical autonomy.

To this end, the significance of a streamlined regulatory mechanism as identified in

the framework is reinforced. The CW development team indicated from experience

that local councils and state government would be ideally placed to respond to

environmental concerns, affordability issues and social dynamics. However, the

reward system and rating system should be initiated by the federal government

because they directly benefit from the tax scheme and balance the infrastructure

budget nationwide:

“The Australia’s competitiveness is determined by federal government

having more sustainable housing and less power station. The sustainability


and affordability is an issue because of the infrastructure, and that is funded

by Federal Government.”(Remark by the CW Planning Manager)

Cost-Benefit Data

The lack of rigorous cost-benefit data at the planning stage was also considered

to be a huge obstacle by the development team. Due to the pioneering nature of the

project, the CW project could base very little assessment of multiple sustainable

features on previously available information. As a result, the development team

experienced an extended timeline for the development and incurred increased

opportunity cost due to the additional time, effort and financial solutions required by

stakeholders adjusting to new approaches.

The development cooperative thus supported the framework finding of the

need for a longitudinal cost-benefit database for future developments to replicate the

core principles embodied in the CW development with decreased opportunity cost.

For example, the cost-benefit assessment conducted throughout the construction and

design stages of the CW development would help predict programming and costs for

future developments. A future project could learn from these experiences and, by

doing so, reduce costs significantly:

“A longitudinal research mechanism would be a huge help, especially if this

organisation is able to assist for-profit businesses with

implementation.”(Planning & Design Manager)

This highlights the function of the self-enforcing loop between cost-benefit

data, technology and design R&D and knowledge dissemination.

Rating Tools

The CW development was not officially assessed against sustainability,

because the energy-efficiency rating was not mandated by Building Code Australia at

the early stage in 2001. However, The CW development team conducted its own

research to compare the energy use and consequent CO2 emissions of CW homes

and average South Australian all-electric homes and “all-gas” homes (homes using

gas for cooking, heating and hot water). The results shown in Table 7.4 indicated that

the sustainable practices of the CW project translated to a considerable amount of

CO2 reduction and energy savings of up to 50% (results for the CW development

were for 2003-2004; results for South Australian average homes were for 1997-


1999). The Architect believed that the CW project should perform well above the

Building Code requirement of a five-star rating on energy efficiency.

Table 7.4 Data Comparison between CW Dwellings and Average South Australian Homes

CO2 emissions (kg) per person

per day

Energy use (kWh) per person

per day

1 person

homes

2 person

homes

1 person

homes

2 person

homes

CW 6.95 5.76 6.28 5.20

SA average

(gas) 11.96 8.62 7.14 5.03

SA average

(electric) 16.25 11.17 14.97 10.07

When asked to comment on the current rating tools on energy efficiency, the

Architect/Developer stated that the connection between rating tools and benefits

should be established. He further stated that:

“I think that if a rewarding action specifically a fiscal benefit were made

available to consumers for achieving a certain rating, that would provide a

strong consumer benefit, especially if each level of rating is provided with

scientific info on lifecycle saving as a result of achieving certain rating.”

7.3.2.4 Findings on Research and Development and Knowledge Diffusion

The CW development integrated many core sustainable features into

construction and design. The overall design strategy centred around energy

efficiency, the use of renewables and a high overall ecological performance allied to

user-participation in the design and development process. Table 7.5 outlines the

major sustainable practices implemented in the development.

In particular, the CW development incorporated the high-density but low-rise

community principle to address integrated design. The high-density and low-rise

feature of the CW community allows more choices of integrated design to be widely

adopted in high-density commercial buildings.


Table 7.5 Implemented Sustainable Practices in the CW Development

Category Sustainable Practices

Energy The provision of solar hot water (stages 1 and 2), and

photovoltaic panels (stage 3)

All buildings designed with natural cross-ventilation and

passive solar design principles

Glass is double-glazed to reduce noise and heat retention

The earthcrete walls, thermalite walls and straw bales are

placed to enhance insulation performance

Minimal heaters or air conditioners are installed due to other

sustainable design to adjust indoor temperature

Water Capturing stormwater for garden irrigation and toilet-flushing

Transport Reduced car dependency by 50% in agreement with the local

council due to the inner-city context of the development

Material Employing non-toxic construction and finishes to avoid

formaldehyde and minimise the use of PVC

All timbers are plantation or recycled

Timber-framed straw bale are employed

Windows are made of recycled timber with aluminium

flyscreens

A Sense of

Community

Shared gardens including roof garden

Local food production in on-site community food garden

A developer indicated the key is the design of compact houses and apartments

and maximising use of all the space. He further pointed out that “urban design and

landscaping strategies of this kind of compact design work best at the scale of the

‘pocket neighbourhood’ of around 12 to 24 dwellings, which is also the scale at

which community works.”

This “pocket neighbourhood” viewpoint provides the insight that large

developments could be broken down into smaller components of this scale to engage

in integrated sustainable design, such as on-site energy cogeneration (gas or biomass)

and renewable energy technologies such as the solar PV system. One example of


such integrated design in the CW development is the innovative engineering of the

roof garden on the top floor in its apartment buildings. The roof garden not only

provides a communal area to socialise but also acts as insulation that works alongside

the natural cross-ventilation and passive solar management with layers of soil and

plants (Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.6. Design of garden roof

7.3.2.5 Findings on Market Adaptation

Cost Issues

According to analysis by postgraduate students at Carnegie-Mellon studying

sustainable communities, the CW development costs 20% more than conventional

development. This cost equates to an R&D budget, and holding cost during the

delayed period:

“The development met with unfamiliarity and suspicion from financial

institutions, local government, real estate agents and the market. Bank

would not lead money for the development, local government upheld policy

requirements at odds with the group’s ethic of reducing consumption and

estate agents did not know how to sell the sustainability features of the

dwellings…These types of obstructions severely slowed the development

process and increased unexpected costs.”(Developer/Architect)


As a result, a price premium to the high level of sustainability was built into a

building or precinct, which placed the CW housing price in a medium-high range

comparable to conventional inner-city properties in Adelaide. The developer stated

that attaching a monetary value to the additional sustainability features might not

work well for the mainstream housing market without the non-profit development

cooperative:

"A project like this requires buyers interested in high-quality design,

investment without an expectation about the bottom line or government

support to drive the outcome. The project would not have been viable as a

purely commercial proposition where developers do not value environmental

and community outcomes as much and hesitate to factor in the ongoing cost

savings associated with building an energy and water-efficient development

when evaluating the investment.”

In fact, in mainstream commercial term, a green premium of four percent could

be regarded as significantly high even considering community amenities, according

to a recent research on energy-efficient investments in housing market (Deng et al.,

2012).

The CW Sustainability Consultant indicated similar views as the FC

development team in stating that customers should not pay more for sustainable

housing, particularly with housing affordability continuing to emerge as a major

public concern. Instead, industry practitioners should adapt to innovative

technologies so they can provide better product at a better price, and eventually

benefit from increased market share.

Market Demand

In the first two stages of the project, the cooperative built for its members. This

generated a guaranteed market demand that a commercial developer may not have

had. By the third stage, the CW development has established its reputation as a

regional sustainable community. The development team thus started targeting

external buyers in a more standard fashion.

One unique approach that assisted the homeowners in the CW development to

ensure investment recovery is the hosting of tours through the community for groups

who are interested in creating similar projects. A fee is charged for each


demonstrative tour, as a commercial reward to the development cooperative for their

sustainable practices.

This approach sheds light on how community-funded sustainable infrastructure

could help the clients to recover initial cost and in turn drive market demand via

shared ownership and ongoing services. For example, shared ownership for solar PV

could reward each household with additionally generated energy (by selling power

back to utilities), so greater-scale purchase and installation could occur to lower the

capital costs and in turn increase the efficiency and potential income of the system.

This helps cope with the well-known “split incentive” of sustainable building where

developers do not have access to the benefits from the sustainable infrastructure they

build to reduce operational costs of energy, water, waste or transport. This is in line

with the previous findings of “a build, own and operate development model” that

allows the capturing of longer-term revenue streams, such as car-share schemes

(Sustainability Victoria, 2011). However, the feasibility of this model could only be

maximised in medium or high-density, precinct-scale housing developments.

Market Scale

When asked to comment on the top-down and bottom-up triggers of the key

factor, market scale, the Sustainability Consultant agreed with the related findings in

the mutual-benefit framework:

“The top-down is for early adoption and to get some initial scale, but if you

keep doing this without thinking of bottom-up. This scale will go up and

drop. There are plenty of products we developed for something and then get

discontinued.”

In fact, market adaptation research found that the positive community

sustainability behaviour was further enhanced by the built form infrastructure of the

CW development (Daniell et al., 2005). This finding proves that a top-down

approach from the government and the supply side will drive market demand at the

early stage of sustainable housing development.

Mitigating Green Washing

Regarding mitigating green washing, the CW development team believed that

every developer would face the temptation to do some green washing. However,

green washing will be avoided when the hard cost-benefit data is provided. This


finding supports the hierarchical significance identified in the mutual-benefit

framework.

7.4 OVERALL FINDINGS OF CASE STUDIES AND THE MODEL FINALISATION

The case study analysed two housing developments to understand the

applicability of the mutual-benefit framework and the opportunities to improve its

practicality in guiding stakeholder action. Although the capacity of each housing

development to deliver sustainable outcomes using the framework was highly varied

across different elements in the framework, a good number of common patterns

could be extracted from the intra-case analysis. This section synthesises the major

findings identified in the previous inter-case analysis and presents them in six areas:

overall practicality of the framework; innovative collaboration; regulatory and policy

support; scientific rating tools based on reliable cost-benefit data; integration of

technology and design, and market scale.

7.4.1 Overall Practicality of the Framework

The experiences of the FC and CW development teams of implementing

sustainability supported the hierarchical significances of the 12 critical factors of

mutual benefits. Although some interviewees believed the framework works better

on the industry and organisation level rather than on individual projects, it is

important to understand these macro-level factors and their mutual influence before

any particular elements could be extracted to assist individual project developments.

Extensive understanding of this mutual-benefit framework by federal or state

governments and influential industry associations such as the UDIA or HIA will lead

to integrated collaboration and actions among key stakeholders. In fact, as

collaborative planning theory mature, Margerum (2008) distinguished three level of

collaborative operating: collaborating at an action (on-the-ground) level, an

organizational level, and a policy level. Action-level collaboration distinguishes itself

by discussing specific projects and activities, while organizational-level groups focus

on aligning organizational programs and priorities. Policy-level collaboration

normally assists regulation making on the government level. In this regard, the four-

level implementation of mutual benefit framework reflects organizational level and a

policy level collaboration, while the eight action guides for each CFAMB is more on

the action level.


7.4.2 Innovative Collaboration

Both cases highlighted the significance of establishing a close working

relationship and integrating design principles early in the planning stages. This

would enhance the mutual trust between stakeholders and increase their technical

familiarity, and in turn reduce opportunity cost (namely, the costs derived from

additional time, effort and financial solutions by stakeholders adjusting to new

approaches) that would otherwise be added to the project.

Regarding the collaborative structure among key stakeholders, the distinctive

roles of developers and industry associations should be singled out from other

industry practitioners. However, the CW development indicates that a cooperative of

multiple stakeholders could sometimes result in complicated and time-consuming

decision-making and management. Clearly articulated roles and responsibilities are

necessary to show leadership, particularly from government agencies, industry

associations and developers. A five-layer pyramid based on stakeholder benefit

patterns was considered to be an optimal collaboration structure.

7.4.3 Regulatory and Policy Support

Sustainable housing remains in its commercial immaturity with most

developments not viable without government financial or regulatory support, or the

significant commitment of an investor and a willingness to persevere. Additionally,

the emerging trend of sustainability is at risk of being compromised by the sharp rise

of housing prices in Australia over the past few years. Therefore, accelerating the

take-up of sustainable housing development in Australia will require the efforts of

governments to provide policy supports. While the regulators should keep enhancing

the consistency and strict enforcement of policymaking, favourable policies and

monetary incentives should be provided to address affordability for developers,

builders and especially consumers. For example, the interviewees recommended a

fiscal benefit to consumers for achieving a certain rating. Such an incentive was

recommended as a way to increase the market demand.

In terms of the responsibility of the streamlined regulating mechanism, the

development teams of both cases recommended that the federal government should

be responsible for the both the “stick and carrot” policymaking, which is in contrast

with the previous statement in the mutual-benefit framework. This is because the


federal government directly benefits from the tax scheme and balances the

infrastructure budget nationwide. Local governments could adapt the nationwide

policies with minor adjustments to cater for their regional climate and housing

development processes. In contrast, developers often are not capable of initiating

similar incentives for builders and supply chain partners. Developers can cultivate a

vision to remunerate their designers and builders based on a percentage share of the

savings they contribute to a project, rather than a percentage of the total value.

7.4.4 Scientific Rating Tools and Reliable Cost-Benefit Data

Although both cases went beyond the mandated sustainable standard, the lack

of rigorous cost-benefit data was reinforced as a huge obstacle to boosting the market

uptake of sustainable housing. This is because the skills, levels of risk tolerance and

methods of project appraisal needed to build and finance the sustainable features in

precinct developments are all currently oriented towards conventional approaches to

precinct design. This can result in a perception of increased risk, increased cost, or a

poor fit between the infrastructure proposed and the development model. This leads

to the higher perceived risk and greater demand of commercial returns from the

supply side, and in turn a sustainability premium being applied by all parties.

The solution highlighted to overcome this barrier in the projects studied is that

rating tools should be formulated based on scientifically reliable cost-benefit data.

This echoes the suggested longitudinal research mechanism in the mutual-benefit

framework. The case study informants argued that the organisations that provide

cost-benefit data could track and integrate data from demonstrative projects for

tracking the data, so future developments could replicate the core principles. The

organisation should also be able to assist for-profit businesses with implementation.

An integrated knowledge hub would be highly beneficial as the educator and

communicator could disseminate the cost-benefit data at all levels, especially if

connected naturally with regional outposts.

7.4.5 Integration of Technology and Design

The case studies suggest that the actual technology barrier is much less of a

hurdle to the broad uptake of sustainable housing than the perception of technology

barriers. This is particularly the case regarding the integration of sustainable

technologies with traditional infrastructure, such as the electricity grid or water


supply. Interviewees suggested that the typology of sustainable commercial buildings

could shed light for the construction of residential buildings: precinct-scale

development of around 12 to 24 dwellings would be the best to allow the integrated

design and renewable energy infrastructure. Large developments could be broken

down into smaller components of this scale to replicate the high-end technologies

applied in the commercial and office market.

This approach will capture the longer-term return on investment for the upfront

cost of sustainable energy infrastructure, and therefore address the split-incentive

barriers of developers/consumers by promoting the “build, own and operate

development model”. The increased scale will in turn reduce opportunity cost and

neutralise the sustainability premium for consumers. It also provides a vision towards

medium and high-density residential development in the mainstream Australian

housing industry. Policies that are proven to successfully assist such a business case

include a premium price for renewable energy and the to-be-implemented carbon tax.

7.4.6 Market Scale

The critical role of market scale in sustainable housing development via

economies of scale was highlighted in the interviews with representatives from both

housing developments. Currently, increases in the market scale of sustainable

housing needs to come from government regulation and the resulting supply side

practices, in order to increase the initial scale and therefore boost stronger market

signals for the future value of sustainability investments. However, market demand

based on sound educational programs and reliable cost-benefit data will be the

ultimate trigger to mainstream sustainability in the housing industry.

7.5 FRAMEWORK FINALISATION

Building on the findings as discussed above, the mutual-benefit framework

presented in Chapter 6 (Figures 6.4, 6.5) was finalised with minor changes. These

changes are summarised in Table 7.6. The finalised framework is shown in Figures

7.7 and 7.8.


Table 7.6 Recommended Changes to the Mutual-benefit Framework

Hierarchical Level Change

The prerequisite

(Level 1):

Innovative Collaboration

One action – “early collaborations and integration at

the planning stage of projects” – was added

The stakeholder structure was adjusted and a five-

layer pyramid structure was adopted to illustrate

various roles of key stakeholders

One action – “consultant-led collaboration” – was

removed

The driving power

(Level 2):

Regulatory Enforcement

One action – “streamlined regulating mechanism” –

was adjusted; this change argued that the federal

government should be responsible for the both the

“stick and carrot” policymaking, while local

government could make minor modifications to cater

to regional situations

One action – “developer-lead incentives” – was

adjusted to “innovative developer remuneration”

under “credible incentive system” and the

collaboration model; specifically, it is recommended

that developers remunerate their designers and

builders based on a percentage share of the savings

they contribute to a project, rather than a percentage

of the total value

The core creative force

(Level 3):

R&D and Knowledge

Diffusion

One action – “promoting precinct-scale development

to address integrated design, split incentives and

sustainability premium” – was added to “technology

and design R&D” to replace “government-sponsored

incentives to developers for better community

planning”

The ultimate indicator

(Level 4):

Market Adaptation

One factor – “market scale” – was highlighted with a

red frame to illustrate its critical role in sustainable

housing development


Figure 7.7. The finalised mutual-benefit framework


Figure 7.8. The finalised collaboration model


7.6 SUMMARY

The mutual-benefit framework was tested and evaluated in this chapter through

two real-life housing projects, namely the FC and CW residential developments. The

projects were selected from two states, Queensland and South Australia. Each project

was developed in a different business model (commercial-mainstream model and

commercial-niche model). Two varied cases were selected in order to increase the

rigor of the results and enhance the generalizability of trends across the Australian

housing industry.

Drawing on the review of the development documents and the experiences of

the project development teams, the applicability of the mutual-benefit framework

was supported by real-life housing developments. The results of the case study

indicated that the framework systematically illustrates the hierarchical significance of

critical factors of stakeholder mutual benefits, and outlines the mutual influences.

The key indicator of mainstreaming sustainable housing (via economies of scale) –

market scale – and its top-down and bottom-up triggers were highly regarded by both

development teams. The framework also outlines the key roles played by

stakeholders and relates the actions plans under each critical factor. It serves as a

reference to deploy collaboration strategies and manage the triple-bottom-line

benefits from engaging in sustainable practices. Although the framework focuses on

depicting the prospective paradigm shift for the housing industry and organisations,

the case study interviewees emphasised that it could also guide critical policymakers

and industry associations to facilitate individual housing developments.

Building on the findings from the inter-case and intra-case analysis, seven

recommended changes were made to finalise the framework. The finalised

framework illustrates a collaboration model, four hierarchical levels, 12 critical

mutual-benefit factors and their interrelations, and a total of 32 activities signified

with a range of symbols and colours.

Chapter 8: Conclusion 251

Chapter 8: Conclusion

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Among the Australia general public, there are increasing concerns about

environmental issues and a rising level of awareness about sustainable housing.

Accordingly, the Australian housing industry is engaged to driving housing

sustainability to standard practice on the development agenda. However, putting the

principles of ecological sustainability into practice within social and economic

development requires intensive involvement of major stakeholders such as

governments, developers, builders, consumers and a range of other professionals.

This is because establishing a sustainable value entails asymmetric life-cycle returns,

making it important for major stakeholders to appreciate the benefits of this new

agenda not only for the individual businesses but also for other supply chain partners.

The above context warrants the research presented in this dissertation to promote

collective benefits for key stakeholders by establishing a mutual-benefit framework

for sustainable housing implementation.

This chapter concludes this research by outlining the achieved research

objectives, highlighting the research contributions and limitations, and finally

suggesting directions for future research.

8.2 REVIEW OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This research investigated the critical factors and collaborative strategies for

promoting stakeholder mutual benefits in sustainable housing development. It

embarked on achieving the following three research objectives:

To examine multiple challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable

housing development (CABs) for key stakeholders in terms of the

significance, current status and correlation.

To identify the diversity of key stakeholders in understanding their

different roles, benefits and risk in sustainable housing development, and

value gaps on CABs.

252 Chapter 8: Conclusion

To identify critical factors of achieving mutual benefits of engaging in

sustainable housing (CFAMBs) based on shared visions of CABs and

balanced stakeholder needs and accordingly develop a systematic mutual-

benefit framework to guide stakeholder actions.

Sequentially achieving the above objectives led to the development of a

framework that addressed the complexity of both sustainable value in housing

development and stakeholder diversity in the housing supply chain. These two

complex elements together constitute the imperative for promoting stakeholder

mutual benefits. They also correspond to the two dimensions of stakeholder mutual

benefits as outlined in Section 1.2: In what ways can multiple interested parties

reach “consensus” on the multi-dimensional knowledge itself?; and What kinds of

“communicative or collaborative” actions – based on balanced stakeholder needs –

can convey the “consensual” knowledge?

Before the empirical research started, an analytical protocol was developed

based on the literature review to encapsulate 19 CABs and seven groups of key

stakeholders in sustainable housing development. This protocol served to guide data

collection and analysis of the three interlinked research methods as below:

1. Quantitative surveys (presented in Chapter 4) examined the overall

significances and interrelationships of the 19 CABs. It also compared CAB

ratings among the seven groups of stakeholders, and in turn provided

preliminary insights on conflicting and common needs in the supply chain.

2. Qualitative in-depth interviews (presented in Chapter 5) triangulated and

extended the survey findings. Stakeholder roles, as well as the benefits and

risks of engaging in sustainable housing, were investigated and their value

gaps and operational conflicts were in turn identified. Such multi-

stakeholder dynamics helped maximise mutual benefits on the

“collaborative and communicative” level. In the meantime, it facilitated

clarification of the current status, significance and interrelationship of the

19 CABs, and in turn helped identify the 12 commonly-agreed CFAMBs,

which reflected on the mutual benefits on the “consensus” level. The

collated two-dimensional mutual benefits were integrated into a

preliminary framework using Interpretive Structural Modelling (presented

in Chapter 6).


3. Case studies of two housing developments (presented in Chapter 7) were

conducted to examine the applicability of the mutual-benefit framework

and explore strategies to further enforce the successful implementation.

Seven recommended changes were included in the finalised framework.

8.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The three objectives have been achieved, and a systemic mutual-benefit

framework has been developed to guide stakeholder actions. The following sections

present the research conclusions distilled from the key findings reported in the

previous chapters.

8.3.1 The Significances of Challenges to Achieving Benefits from Sustainable Housing Development

Nineteen challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable housing

development (CABs) were examined in terms of their current states, significance and

interrelationship (presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). The findings show that the

concern about quantifiable economic returns remains the top factor that affects

stakeholder benefits. Additionally, institutional issues such as policymaking

efficiency and inadequate collaborations also received attention from mainstay

industry practitioners and those with longer working experiences, and therefore

emerged as the second significant group of challenges. While the actual technical and

design barrier is less of a hindrance than the perception of its difficulty to the uptake

of sustainable housing, integrated design remains important to reducing opportunity

cost and in turn bringing sustainable practices into the mainstream. Somewhat

surprisingly, this research revealed lower ratings on some traditionally-emphasised

socio-cultural challenges, such as social conscience, brand enhancement, indicating

the awareness readiness of the housing industry stakeholders in Australia.

The results on CAB significances called for three well-developed systems for

housing industry stakeholders. First, a government-led rewarding system should be

developed to assist housing sustainability to grow and become “mainstream”. A

research regime with scientific rigor and a longitudinal approach also appeared

essential to manifest reliable cost-benefit data of sustainable housing practices, which

would greatly facilitate the implementation of current mandatory rating tools.


However, environmental collaboration should be highlighted and acted upon as the

prerequisite to underpin the above two systems.

8.3.2 Diversity of Key Stakeholders in Roles, Benefits and Risks

The diverse needs and perceptions of the seven groups of key stakeholders

were investigated (refer to Chapters 4 and 5) in order to unveil value gaps, different

benefits patterns as well as mutual interests, and eventually identify critical factors in

achieving mutual benefits (CFAMBs). This knowledge was integrated into a

collaboration model in Section 6.4.1 to describe stakeholders’ interactions and key

collaborative activities, and shown as a simplified conceptual diagram in the

following Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1. Stakeholder collaboration model

Based on their roles and benefit procurement patterns, stakeholders are divided

into three groups: regulators, supply-side practitioners and consumers. The first

group of stakeholders (Group 1), regulators, include government agencies and

scientific community and professional associations such as the HIA, MBA, GBCA

and UDIA. Government agencies directly benefit from environmental-related

taxation revenue and schemes to fulfil environmental commitments and the needs of

the nation’s future generations, and therefore are the best equipped to implement

various incentives and carry out educational programs to develop public interest. The

scientific community and industry associations require government funding and

collaboration to promote environmental performance. Their scientific and

technological skills make them stand out as the best candidates to assist government

with the policymaking and the establishment of a longitudinal cost-benefit research

2

3

4

5

Industry Association & Scientific Community

Developer

Other Housing Industry Practitioner

Consumer

Group 1: Regulator Benefit directly from environmental values

Group 2: Delivery Party Benefit from escalated

market scale and economic values

Group 3: Consumer Benefit from social

and economic values

Governments 1


regime. Group 1 stakeholders can provide the initial driving power for sustainable

housing development and can monitor the implementation activities of other housing

industry practitioners and consumers.

Group 2 consists of industry practitioners in the delivery channel of sustainable

housing; namely, developers, builders, architects/designers, other consultants,

financial institutions and real estate agents. The members of this group oversee the

design and construction processes and are responsible for bringing housing to the

market that meets consumer needs and government regulatory requirements. In

general, this group has to take higher financial risk or go through a greater learning

curve when involved in sustainable housing. Despite the increased reputation that

results from the involvement in sustainable practices, the tangible benefits mainly

manifest when reputation translates to competitive advantage as the market scales up.

Driven mainly by economic returns, industry practitioners will be less enthusiastic to

take the lead before the mainstream market is ready for sustainable housing.

However, the members of this group will quickly embrace the new learning curve of

sustainable practices and start internalising related skills once the market momentum

accrues and the market scale escalates. To use the “delivery” trait of this group to

advantage, government guidance and regulation is necessary to boost market uptake

in the early stage of sustainable housing development.

Consumers constitute the last group of stakeholders. Their behaviour is mostly

driven by advantages such as lifetime energy savings, premium resale price and most

importantly, health and comfort, to ultimately boost market demand. Ideally,

consumers will also directly benefit from sustainable practices and invest additional

money on sustainable features, and thereby driving sustainable housing development

together with Group 1 stakeholders. However, their roles as initiators will not be

critical at the early stage of the campaign.

The specific mutual benefits among the three groups of stakeholders are

distilled from the collaboration model and presented in Figure 6.6 in Section 6.4.

8.3.3 Critical Factors of Achieving Mutual Benefits and the Mutual-benefit Framework

Examining the 19 CABs in the multi-stakeholder context led to the extraction

of 12 commonly-agreed critical factors in achieving mutual benefits. The hierarchical

significance (driving force and dependence) of the 12 CFAMBs was further analysed


through Interpretive Structural Modelling in Chapter 6. The synthesised knowledge

of the 12 CFAMBS, their mutual influences, as well as the collaboration model as

discussed in the last section constitutes the essential elements of a mutual-benefit

framework (described in Section 6.4 and finalised in Chapter 7). Figure 8.2 shows

the simplified conceptual diagram of this framework.

This systematic framework centres on how sustainable housing values could be

created and how the sustainable housing market could be escalated through joint

stakeholder efforts. It reflects stakeholder mutual benefits in accordance with the

two-fold principle of collaborative theories: the consensual knowledge of CFAMBs

and the “collaborative and communicative” actions based on balanced stakeholder

needs to convey the consensus knowledge. Except for the collaboration model, it also

highlights:

Four sequential levels of implementation

A key indicator of market mainstreaming and two self-enforcing loops

Eight action guides for CFAMBs on the first three levels

Figure 8.2. Hierarchy of the 12 CFAMBs

The four levels are: innovative collaboration; regulatory enforcement; R&D

and knowledge diffusion; and market and industry adaptation. Fostering CFAMBs

higher up in the hierarchy will support sequential CFAMBs, and systematically guide

Level 1: The Prerequisite Innovative Collaboration

Level 2: Regulatory Enforcement

(The Driving Power)

Effective

Regulatory Mechanism

Incentive System Cost-Benefit Data Rating Tools

Level 3: Research and Development, and Knowledge

Diffusion (The Core Creative Force)

Professional Re-

Education & Up-Scaling



Level 4: Market Adaptation (The Ultimate Indicator)

Market Scale Cost Issues Mitigating

Green Washing Market Demand


sustainable housing development. Specifically, level 1 “innovative collaboration”

serves as the prerequisite for the other eleven CFAMBs. It is based on the

collaboration model to create collaborative and communicative mutual benefits for

multiple stakeholders.

The second level, “regulatory enforcement”, highlights the regulatory and

institutional issues, which is the initial driving power of sustainable housing

development. It is comprised of an effective regulatory mechanism, an incentive

system, reliable cost-benefit data and a consistent nationwide rating tool. In fact,

level 2 represents the four essential components of a holistic code for sustainable

housing development. It sets the boundaries of the desired outcomes in the market.

This “managed market” approach is extremely important to assist innovation to grow

and become mainstreamed, particularly for sectors that require substantial upfront

capital investment like the housing industry.

Level 3, “R&D and knowledge diffusion”, includes technology and design

R&D, professional re-education and up-scaling and public education and awareness.

These three factors are defined as core components because they together manifest

the original value-adding process. This process promotes market scale on level 4 and

reinforces the cost-benefit data on level 2, which in turn strengthens this level itself.

Such a self-enforced loop provides a platform for “economies of scale” in

microeconomic terms.

Level 4 includes four dependent yet decisive factors that ultimately indicate the

market success of sustainable housing: market demand, market scale, cost issues, and

mitigating green washing. This market adaptation process has limited creative force

itself. However, the process could be driven by higher-up levels, and create

momentum to keep circulating towards the market mainstream. This momentum was

evidenced upon the identification of another self-enforced loop among market scale,

market demand, and cost issues. Any positive input (driving force) into a certain

point of the loop will be passed down to the other two factors and iterate positive

changes. Particularly, the framework identified “market scale” as a key determinant

of mainstreaming sustainable housing. It could be driven either by regulatory actions

(the top-down approach) or the market demand resulting from the educational system

(the bottom-up approach). While the former is considered a quick fix, the latter bears

the stronger ultimate power.


Finally, the framework provides eight specific action guides for CFAMBs on

the first three levels of the framework. This is because of their higher level of

hierarchical significance and their driving power of market success. The following

text box shows one action guide for cost-benefit data as an example. The knowledge

is organised according to: (1) hierarchical significance, (2) problems, and (3)

recommendations. While the first two parts of the guide present the mutual influence

between CFAMBs and issues calling for attention, the last part further explains each

stakeholder’s responsibility and presents a possible working document. This action

plan gives project stakeholders tools to make decisions about alternative

sustainability measures in housing developments. It can arguably bridge the

knowledge gap between stakeholder expertise and other development-related

knowledge beyond their profession. It also offers a systematic tool and a quick

overview of sustainability solutions that encompass a number of areas of concern.

Action Guide for

Cost-Benefit Data


Fundamental factor in solving the “who pays for what, and when” puzzle

Crucial to stakeholder education and communication

Paves the way for implementing mandatory rating tools

Insufficient methodology to measure the cost-benefit data of integrated design

Lack of longitudinal data tracking individual technology and design in a building’s life-span

Lack of quantitative data Recommendations

For governments, scientific organisations and industry associations – develop a research regime tracking longitudinal data through collaboration

For the research regime – establish an integrated knowledge hub For policymakers and the scientific community – develop a consumer-friendly

measuring tool and language to interpret rating tools via collaboration. For example, a symbolic communication for hard-to-quantify data could be promoted to facilitate consumers to better understand benefits

For the research regime – use demonstrative projects to advantage to assist research and development


8.4 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

From a doctoral project by Colebourne (1993) to the publication by Birkeland

(2008), a considerable amount of international works has investigated the potential of

mainstreaming sustainable housing, in order to deal with existing environmental

issues. Previous research, such as the research by Lowe and Oreszczyn (2008) and

Jensen and Gram-Hanssen (2008), largely focuses on addressing the drivers and

barriers at the political level by treating the building industry as a whole. Some

others, such as Wolfgang (2007) and Fielding (2010), concentrate only on individual

key stakeholders such as consumers and builders.

However, contemporary collaborative theories argue that such sustainability-

related implementation highly depends on shared understanding and mutual support

of key stakeholders, including government officials, industry practitioners and the

public, rather than the political hierarchy and control only (Margerum, 2002).

Therefore, this research for the first time attempts to establish a collaboration-based

framework based on key stakeholder mutual benefits as a key force to drive

sustainable housing implementation. The research findings underscore a number of

contributions to academic knowledge and industry practices, as discussed in this

section.

Contribution to Academic Knowledge

This study provides a new vision to link the stakeholder benefits of

engaging in sustainable housing with the diversity of multiple stakeholders

in the housing supply chain. This approach expands the collaborative

planning theories by Healey (2003), Innes (2004) and Margerum (2008) to

the realm of sustainable building in terms of establishing the two core

principles of stakeholder mutual benefits: creating the “consensus” on the

knowledge among multiple interested groups; and developing the

“collaborative and communicative” actions to convey the consensual

knowledge. Specifically, this research highlights a comparative approach

across seven stakeholders using the statistical analysis, social network

analysis and content analysis. Such comparative analysis provides the

platform to balance individual stakeholder needs, identify consensual

critical factors of sustainable housing development, and eventually


establish collaborative action guides. These findings not only advance the

creation of network power in sustainable building development in general,

but also contribute to the knowledge of supply chain management by

Harland (1996) and Woodhead et al (2009) and partnering by Hong-Minh

et al (2001).

Previous research into the influence factors of implementing sustainable

buildings tends to develop isolated strategies for individual factors.

However, these issues and factors are complex and highly interlinked in a

sustainability-related context where the environmental, economic, social

and institutional issues overlap. This research identifies such complex

“cause and effect” relationships among critical factors of achieving mutual

benefits, which leads to a structural hierarchy where the successful

implementations of the higher-up factors could drive factors at a lower

level of the hierarchy. This approach goes beyond the simplistic

prioritisation of a list of factors by identifying the opportunities to address

multi-dimensional issues using systematic strategies. The results of such

investigation impart a new dimension to the current factor-based research

regarding sustainable building by Lorenz et al. (2005), Sayce (2007),

Williams and Dair (2007) and many others. The final hierarchical

framework also substantiates the knowledge of stakeholder decision-

making and policymaking of sustainable building by Van Bueren (2007),

Warnock (2007) and Lowe and Oreszczyn (2008).

The limited research in promoting sustainable building development in

terms of stakeholder benefits meant there was scarce literature on the

challenges to achieving benefits from sustainable housing development.

This research bridges this gap by establishing a connection between the

business “outputs and inputs” for innovation and “drivers and barriers” of

sustainable building development. Specifically, identifying the potential

challenges that influence the benefit flow (benefit gains and losses) of each

stakeholder was translated into examining how the drivers and barriers of

the sustainable housing development affect their individual business

(business outputs and inputs). Doing so led to the establishment of an

analytic protocol (Chapter 4), which provided a reference for the research


of benefits in the implementation of sustainable housing. The final mutual-

benefit framework (Chapters 6 and 7) also expands the current research of

individual stakeholder benefits with a new systemisation dimension.

Contribution to the Australian Housing Industry

The insights from the mutual-benefit framework are helpful for housing

industry stakeholders to understand how top-down (regulation) and

bottom-up (education and awareness) approaches respectively increase the

market scale of sustainable housing and eventually lead to economies of

scale. It might assist government agencies and industry associations in

systematic policymaking to promote the business case for sustainable

housing. It also provides a practical tool for key industry stakeholders such

as developers and builders in making investment decisions and operational

strategies.

The collaboration model enables government, consumers, and

“competitive” industry practitioners to understand each other’s tension,

benefits and responsibilities, which facilitates the development of mutual

trust and interaction. It might provide stakeholders with the insights on the

long-term benefits as opposed to the short-term asymmetric benefits,

which would in turn help stakeholders understand that the “win-lose” or

“averaged out” situation does not necessarily occur. This improved

knowledge potentially helps foster stakeholder enthusiasm for

collaboration in sustainable practices, and in turn, enables the

opportunities to break the well-known “vicious circle of blame” in

sustainable building development.

The quantitative and qualitative analyses of the 19 CABs can help key

stakeholders become more aware of their prioritised issues in

implementing sustainable housing. The collection of the distilled critical

factors of achieving mutual benefits from the 19 CABs can be used as an

assessment tool by governments and industry associations to evaluate the

sustainability performance of housing development.

The research outcome could be potentially used as education materials for

government agencies and industry practitioners through further industry

level dissemination. For example, the research team could produce


educational leaflets that outline the framework and actions guide in

collaboration with local governments and professional industry

associations such as HIA. Similar training purpose could be achieved by

means of organising seminars and forums, and seeking research coverage

in industry magazines by engaging relevant authorities.

8.5 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Despite the contribution of this research to the existing knowledge and

practices, limitations to the research need to be acknowledged to direct future

research:

While studying the stakeholder mutual benefits in the new-build housing

area in Australia allows greater specificity in describing the types of

benefits, risks and collaborations, it might limit generalization of the final

outcome. The mutual-benefit framework may also contribute to a wider

range of sustainable development, due to the similarity of sustainable

practices between new-build housing and other supply-side-oriented

sectors, such as commercial buildings and renovated residential buildings.

Future research is also likely to benefit from expanding the research

process and the end-product to other countries. However, these were not

the focus of this research due to time and resource limitations.

While this research exerted every effort to specify potential benefits of

sustainable housing implementation, the findings are largely based on the

experience and viewpoints of survey respondents and interviews. The data

would be more robust if quantifiable data on economic returns could have

been employed to model a housing development process during the case

study.

8.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In light of the research findings and study limitations, three areas are

highlighted for future research:

The literature review shows that other countries such as the UK and New

Zealand may have similar issues in promoting stakeholder mutual benefits

and fostering market demand for sustainable housing development.


Moreover, this research drew on experiences from countries in North

Europe and North America. Therefore, there is the potential that the

mutual-benefit framework developed in this research might provide

valuable insights for housing industry practitioners and relevant

government agencies in other countries. Beneficial steps for implementing

the identified mutual-benefit principles in future research would entail

adapting this framework to these countries by considering their specific

legal, cultural and political environments.

The identified mutual benefits for stakeholders are largely qualitative

rather than quantitative, and thus are not by all means specific and

convincing to support stakeholder decision-making. There is significant

potential for future research to further quantify and verify the benefits

identified in this research and thus customising a more specific action plan

and decision-making tools for stakeholders. However, conducting such

quantitative analysis might jeopardise the level of data accuracy and

reliability, owing to the already large amount of field work and systematic

qualitative data analysis. Therefore, this part of work should be prioritised

in future research, possibly via comprehensive residential building case

studies with quantifiable commercial data.

This research shows that builders in residential developments take direct

technical risks when implementing sustainable technologies, thus showing

extremely low interest in sustainable housing practices. This situation has

placed a significant barrier to creating mutual benefits for other

stakeholders. Seeking to enhance the builders’ professional knowledge,

skills and encouraging them to promote sustainable practices actively

through specific policymaking will pave the way for stakeholder

collaborations and in turn consolidate the platform of the mutual-benefit

framework. Although this research has already begun work in this domain,

there is an opportunity for future research to expand the findings from this

research.


References 265

References

ABS. (2005). Housing stock: Supply of Housing. Sydney, 2005, viewed 3 March, 2011, Australian Bureau of Statistics. No. 4102.0.

Adams, J., Khan, H. T. A., Raeside, R., & White, D. (2010). Research methods for graduate business and social science students. Writing, 14 (3), 161-164.

Adeyeye, K., Osmani, M., & Brown, C. (2007). Energy conservation and building design: the environmental legislation push and pull factors. Structural Survey, 25(5), 375.

Ahuja, V. (2007). IT enhanced communication protocols for building project management by small and medium enterprises in the Indian construction industry. PhD Thesis, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

Akintoye, A. (2000). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Construction Management & Economics, 18(1), 77-89.

Alder, S., Yang, J. (2005). The exploration of attitudinal issues and decision making of key stakeholders in sustainable housing development, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Engaging Communities, August, Brisbane.

Allan, M. (2009). Towards Sustainable Residential Development. Paper presented at the Property Council Australia (SA) Sustainable Urban Growth Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Allmendinger, P. (2009). Planning theory: Palgrave Macmillan.

Arman, M., Zuo, J., Wilson, L., Zillante G., & Pullen S. (2009). Challenges of responding to sustainability with implications for affordable housing. Ecological Economics, 68, 3034-3041.

Barlow, J., & Ozaki, R. (2003). Achieving Customer Focus in Private Housebuilding: Current Practice and Lessons from Other Industries. Housing Studies, 18(1), 87-101.

Barnes, Y. (2007). The market for Sustainable Homes. Savills Research Report for Summer 2007.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Bayer, R. S. (2001). Environmental Collaboration. Company Report.

Building Design + Construction. (2011). 2011 White Paper: Zero and Net-Zero Energy Buildings + Homes. Building Design + Construction, available at <http://www.bdcnetwork.com/zero-and-net-zero-energy-buildings-homes>.

266 References

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, California State University, Long Beach.

Bergman, N., Whitmarsh, L., & Kohler, J. (2008). Transition to sustainable development in the UK housing sector: from case study to model implementation. UEA: Tyndall Centre Working Paper.

Birkeland, J. (2002). Design for sustainability: a sourcebook of integrated, eco-logical solutions, Earth scan, London.

Birkeland, J. (2008). Positive development: from vicious circles to virtuous cycles through built environment design, Earthscan, London.

BIS Shrapnel, E. (2009). Residential Property Prospects 2009 – 2012.

Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation: Polity, MA.

Blair, J., Prasad, D., Judd, B., Zehner, R., Soebarto, V. I., & Hyde, R. (2004). Affordability and sustainability outcomes: a triple bottom line assessment of traditional development and master planned communities, AHURI Final report (1).

Blazey, P. J., & Gillies, P. S. (2008). Sustainable Housing in Australia-Fiscal Incentives and Regulatory Regimes-Current Developments-Policies for the Future. Macquarie Law Working Paper No. 2008-29.

Blue Ocean Strategy. (2009). Four Hurdles to Execution, viewed Feb 21 2011, available at <http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/abo/4_hurdles.html>.

Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective. Ecology and Society, 11(2), R2.

Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A., & Pastor, P. (2005). Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision-making groups. Management Decision, 43(6), 877-895.

Born, M. and W. Sonzogni. (1995). Towards integrated environmental management: Strengthening the conceptualization. Environmental Management, 19(2):167–183.

Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. The Library Quarterly, 431-449.

Brown, M. A., & Southworth, F. (2008). Mitigating climate change through green buildings and smart growth. Environment and Planning, 40(3), 653.

Bryant, L., & Eves, C. (2011). Sustainability and mandatory disclosure in Queensland: an assessment of the impact on home buyer patterns. In 17th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 16-19 January 2011, Gold Coast, Australia.

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 and 16: A guide for social scientists, Routledge.

References 267

Bügl, R., Leimgruber, C., Hüni, G. R., & Scholz, R. W. (2009). Sustainable property funds: financial stakeholders’ views on sustainability criteria and market acceptance. Building Research & Information, 37(3), 246-263.

Building Design + Construction. (2011). 2011 White Paper: Zero and Net-Zero Energy Buildings + Homes. Available at <http://www.bdcnetwork.com/zero-and-net-zero-energy-buildings-homes>.

Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387.

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, Society and culture, The Power of Identity, 1(3).

California Government. (2005). Sacramento, viewed 20 July 2009, <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/>.

Chiu, R. (2004). Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: a conceptual exploration. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(2), 65-76.

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction. (1999). Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, CIB Report Publication 237, Rotterdam.

Construction Industry Institute. (1989). Partnering: Meeting the Challenges of the Future. Construction Industry Institute (CII) Special Publication: CII Austin Texas.

Coad, A., De Haan, P., & Woersdorfer, J. S. (2009). Consumer support for environmental policies: An application to purchases of green cars. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2078-2086.

Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and Information, 33(5), 455-467.

Colebourne, A. (1994). Toward Sustainable Housing: Barriers and Accelerators to Innovation in the Residential Construction Industry; Kingston Case Study. Master Thesis, School of Planning, Queen’s University, Canada.

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, Palgrave Macmillan.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Sydney, viewed 12 Dec 2009, Australia Green Emission Inventory System, <http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/ANZSIC.aspx>.

Commonwealth of Australia (2010). Ex-post Evaluation of Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Project Document, Australian Government, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Crabtree, L. (2005). Sustainable Housing Development in Urban Australia: exploring obstacles to and opportunities for ecocity efforts. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 333-350.

268 References

Crabtree, L. (2006). Sustainability begins at home? An ecological exploration of sub/urban Australian community-focused housing initiatives. Geoforum, 37, 519-535.

CRYAM. (2009). Netminer Manual, viewed OCT 13 2010, Seoul, <http://www.netminer.com/index.php>.

Dainty, A. R. J., Millett, S. J., & Briscoe, G. H. (2001). New perspectives on construction supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(4), 163-173.

Daniell, K. A., Kingsborough, A. B., Malovka, D. J., Sommerville, H. C., Foley, B. A., & Maier, H. R. (2005). Sustainability assessment of housing developments: a new methodology. In: Batten, D.F., Perez, P. (eds.) Complex Science for a Complex World: Exploring Human Eco-systems with Agents, 113-146. ANU E Press, Canberra (2006).

Deneen.B.S, & Howard.B. (2007). Buildings that breathe-green construction is coming of age. E magazine, 18 (1), page 26 (10).

Deng, Y., Li, Z., & Quigley, J. M. (2012). Economic Returns to Energy-Efficient Investments in the Housing Market: Evidence from Singapore. Regional Science and Urban Economics, accepted.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Du Plessis, C. (2002). Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries: a discussion document: CSIR Building and Construction Technology.

Duron, R. W. (2001). Factors Associated with the Perceived Benefits of Activity-based Costing in Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Learning: Capella University.

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the suitable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90.

Evans, D., & Gruba, P. (2003). How to write a better thesis: Melbourne University Publishing.

Faisal, M. N. (2010). Analysing the barriers to corporate social responsibility in supply chains: an interpretive structural modelling approach. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 13(3), 179-195.

Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2008). Research methods for construction: Blackwell Pub.

Fielding, K. S., & Housing, A. (2010). Environmental sustainability: Understanding the attitudes and behaviour of Australian households: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their implications for the US Department of Energy. Proceedings of E-vision 2000 Conference, 11-13 Oct 2000, Washington, DC.

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research: Sage Publications Ltd.

References 269

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (Vol. 1): Pitman.

Gane, M., & Hefferan, M. (2007). Valuing the changes-Will investment in sustainable features be recognised in market value. Presented in the Symposium of Affordable Sustainable Housing, Australian Green Development Forum.

Gray B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems: Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research, 17(4), 364.

Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1-24.

Green Builidng Council of Australia. (2011). Sydney, viewed 01 Oct 2011, <http://www.gbca.org.au/project-directory.asp>.

Gregoire, M. J. (2010). Understanding and Supporting Sustainable Housing Innovators. Master Thesis, School of Environmental and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo.

Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods: Wiley.

Grosskopf, K. R., & Kibert, C. (2006). Economic incentive framework for sustainable energy use in US residential construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(8), 839-846.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches: Jossey-Bass.

Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York:Wiley.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods (Vol. 32): Sage Publications, Inc.

Harland, C. M. (1996). Supply chain management: relationships, chains and networks. British Journal of management, 7, S63-S80.

Healey, P. (2003). ‘Collaborative Planning in Perspective’, Planning Theory 2(2): 101–23.

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed): Palgrave Macmillan.

Hes, D. (2005). Facilitating ‘green’ building: turning observation into practice: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Housing Industry Association. (1999). Sydney, view 20 June 2009, GreenSmart Housing Industry Association, <www.hia.com.au >.

Holti, R., Nicolini, D., & Smalley, M. (1999). Prime Contractor’s Handbook of Supply Chain Management. Sections I & II, Ministry of Defence, Landon, UK.

270 References

Hong-Minh, S. M., Barker, R., & Naim, M. M. (2001). Identifying supply chain solutions in the UK house building sector. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(1), 49-59.

Horton, B. (2005). Sustainable Homes-the financial and environmental benefits. Science Report SC040050/SR. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Housing Industry Association. (1999). Sydney, view 20 June 2009, GreenSmart Housing Industry Association, <www.hia.com.au >.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277.

Innes, J. (2004). ‘Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics’, Planning Theory 3(1): 5–20.

Innes J, Booher DE. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4):412–423.

Innes, J, Gruber, J. (2005). ‘Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 71(2): 177–88.

Janes, F. (1988). Interpretive structural modelling: a methodology for structuring complex issues. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 10(3), 145-154.

Jensen, J., & Gram-Hanssen, K. (2008). Ecological modernisation of sustainable buildings: a Danish perspective. Building Research & Information, 36(2), 146-158.

Ji, S. H. (2007). People's awareness and attitudes towards the sustainable low energy apartment housing in Korea. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Building Asia, 27-29 June 2007, Seoul, Korea. Page 709-714.

Jieming, Z. (2011). Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam: The institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons. Cities, 29 (2), 77-87.

Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (2006). Business and management research methodologies: Sage Publications, Inc.

Jupp, J. (2010). A network theoretic perspective of decision processes in complex construction projects. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Construction & Real Estate Management (ICCREM2010).

Katz, L. (1953). A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18(1), 39-43.

Keeping, M. (2000). “What about demand? Do investors want ‘sustainable buildings’?”. In Proceedings Cutting Edge 2000 conference, 6-8 September 2000, London, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Research Foundation.

References 271

Kelly, J. R. (2005). Managing client value at the strategic briefing stage of construction projects: Heriot-Watt University Built Environment.

Kendall, M. G. (1955). Rank correlation methods (2nd): Hafner Press, NYC.

Koebel, C. T. (2008). Innovation in homebuilding and the future of housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(1), 45-58.

Kothari, C. (2008). Research methodology: methods and techniques: New Age International.

Laffont, J. J., & Martimort, D. (2002). The theory of incentives: the principal-agent model: Princeton Univ Pr.

LaSalle, J. (2007). Global Trends in Sustainable Real Estate: An Occupier's Perspective. Jones Lang LaSalle and Core Net Global.

Laszlo, C. (2003). The sustainable company: How to create lasting value through social and environmental performance: Island Pr.

Levitt, R. E. (2007). CEM research for the next 50 years: maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133 (9), 619-628.

Liebowitz, J. (2005). Linking social network analysis with the analytic hierarchy process for knowledge mapping in organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 76-86.

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: Esensi.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75): Sage Publications, Inc.

Lorenz, D., Lutzkendorf, T., & Panek, A. (2005). Sustainable construction in Central/Eastern Europe: implications from SB04 in Warsaw. Building Research and Information, 33(5), 416-427.

Lorenz, D., Truck, S., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2007). Exploring the relationship between the sustainability of construction and market value: Theoretical basics and initial empirical results from the residential property sector. Property Management, 25(2), 119-149.

Love, P. E. D., & Smith, J. (2003). Benchmarking, bench action, and bench learning: rework mitigation in projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19 (4), 147-159.

Lovell, H. (2004). Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(1), 35-55.

Lovins, A. B., Lovins, L. H., & Hawken, P. (2000). A road map for natural capitalism. A Book Chapter from “Understanding business: environments”: Harvard Business Review.

Lowe, R. (2006). Defining absolute environmental limits for the built environment. Building Research and Information, 34(4), 405-415.

272 References

Lowe, R., & Oreszczyn, T. (2008). Regulatory standards and barriers to improved performance for housing. Energy Policy, 36 (12), 4475-4481..

Lutzkendorf, T., & Habil, D. (2011). How to break the vicious circle of blame? The contribution of different stakeholders to a more sustainable built environment. available at <http://www.fec.unicamp.br/~parc/vol1/n6/vol1-n6-LUTZKENDORF.pdf>.

Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2005). Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Building Research and Information, 33(3), 212-234.

Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(6), 52-59.

Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, I., & Nakou, A. (2006). Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: a Delphi study. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 113-120.

Margerum, R. D. (1997). Integrated approaches to environmental planning and management. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(4), 459.

Margerum, R. D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: The elements critical to success. Environmental Management. 65(2):181–192.

Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 21(2):237–253.

Margerum, R. D. (2002). Evaluating collaborative planning: Implications from an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 179-193.

Margerum, R. D. (2007). Overcoming locally based collaboration constraints. Society & Natural Resources, 20(2), 135-152.

Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management, 41(4), 487-500.

Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management: MIT Press Ltd.

McCuen, T. (2007). The value of building sustainable homes. Paper presented at the The Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

McGraw-Hill Construction, & U.S Green Building Councill. (2006). Green building Smartmarket report, McGraw-Hill Construction in conjunction with U.S Green Building Council, New York.

Melbourne Energy Institute. (2010). Zero Carbon Australia: Stationary Energy Plan. University of Melbourne.

Melchert, L. (2007). The Dutch sustainable building policy: A model for developing countries? Building and Environment, 42(2), 893-901.

References 273

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.": Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco.

Michaelis, J., Morris, F., Phillips, C., & Philipson, M. (2010). Residential energy management in Australia 2010: attitudes, opportunities, trends. Connection Research Report.

Myers, G., Reed, R., & Robinson, J. (2007). The relationship between sustainability and the value of office buildings. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference, Perth.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Researching people: Longman Cheshire.

Mohd, R. F., Mustaffa, N. E., & Yaakob, J. (2010). Legal Issues of Partnering in Construction Industry: Malaysis Contract Law System. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Construction & Real Estate Management (ICCREM2010).

Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231-246.

Moore EA, Koontz TM. (2003). A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources 16(5):451–460.

Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 5th edn.(Allyn & Bacon: Boston): Massachusetts.

Newman, L. and A. Dale. (2004). Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: A response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society, 10 (1). [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp2/.

Newton, P., Baum, S., Bhatia, S., Brown, S., Cameron, S., Foran, B., et al. (2001). Human settlements: Australia state of the environment report, 2001.

O'Leary, M. T. (2008). Sustainable housing-northern suburbs of Adelaide home occupiers perceptions. AIBS South Australia Conference-Climate change: Engaging the elements.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001). Report of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, France.

Olugu, E. U., Wong, K. Y., & Shaharoun, A. M. (2011). Development of key performance measures for the automobile green supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 567-579.

Osmani, M., & O'Reilly, A. (2009). Feasibility of zero carbon homes in England by 2016: A house builder's perspective. Building and Environment, 44(9), 1917-1924.

Ott, L., & Longnecker, M. (2008). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis: Duxbury Pr.

274 References

Oxley III, D. (2006). Role of Prefabricated Modular Housing Systems in Promoting Sustainable Housing Practices. Master Thesis, School of Civil and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: Open University. Press.

Panawek, K. (2007). Changing light green to deep green: mainstreaming green building in Hamilton County. Master Thesis, the College of Design, Aurchitecture, Art & Planning, University of Cincinnati, USA.

Paul, W. L., & Taylor, P. A. (2008). A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1858-1870.

Property Council of Australia. (2011). Residential sustainability – time for take-off. Canberra, viewed 6 June 2011, Property Council of Australia, <http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=56&mid=1715>.

Peter, P. (2009). Low Carbon Construction. Report of Innovation & Growth Team, Policies, UK Government, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Pilkington, B., Roach, R., & Perkins, J. (2011). Relative benefits of technology and occupant behaviour in moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm. Energy Policy, 39, 4962-4970.

Queensland Government. (2009). Brisbane, viewed 15 Oct 2009, Sustainable Homes, <http://www.sustainable-homes.org.au/>.

Rahman, S. M. S., Patnaikuni, I., & de Silva, S. (2005). Housing Sustainability in Australia. [online], URL: http://mams.rmit.edu.au/mlf1mqhzaxs81.pdf.

Ramsay, K. (2002). What is sustainable housing? Plan Canada, 42(4), 25-26.

Rashid, Y. R., Sulaiman, M. S., Aziz, A., Selamat, H., Yani, A. H. M., & Kandar, M. Z. (2011). Greening government's office buildings: PWD Malaysia experiences. Procedia Engineering, 21(0), 1056-1060.

Ravi, V., & Shankar, R. (2005). Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(8), 1011-1029.

Rees, W. E. (1999). The built environment and the ecosphere: a global perspective. Building Research & Information, 27(4), 206-220.

Robinson, C., Margerum, R., Koontz, T., Mosley, C., & Lurie, S. (2011). Policy-level collaborative for effective environmental management: Lessons and Challenges from Australia and the United States. Society and Natural Resources, 24 (8), 1-11.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (Fourth Edition), New York, Free Press.

Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings: a socio-technical perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(1), 137-150.

References 275

Roodman, D. M., Lenssen, N., & Peterson, J. A. (1995). A building revolution: How ecology and health concerns are transforming construction: Worldwatch Institute.

Ryghaug, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (2009). How energy efficiency fails in the building industry. Energy Policy, 37(3), 984-991.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Sayce, S. (2007). Understanding investment drivers for UK sustainable property. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 629-643.

Schetke, S., Haase, D., & Kötter, T. (2012). Towards sustainable settlement growth: A new multi-criteria assessment for implementing environmental targets into strategic urban planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 195-210.

Schmidt, C. W. (2008). Bringing green homes within reach: healthier housing for more people. Environmental health perspectives, 116(1), A24.

Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach: Wiley-India.

Selin S, Chavez D. (1995). Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19(2):189–195

Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). Core issues in sustainable supply chain management–a Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 455-466.

Seyfang, G. (2009). The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption: Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Sheftalovich, Z. (2011). Sydney, viewed 15 April 2011, Solar panel payback times, Choice Magazine, <http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/solar/solar-payback-times.aspx>.

Shin, D., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D., & Zwetsloot, G. I. (2008). Development of a sustainability policy model for promoting cleaner production: a knowledge integration approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1823-1837.

Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. Proceedings of International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE, Singapore, 2-4 December, pp. 2091-2095.

Smith, H. W. (1975). Strategies of social research: The methodological imagination: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R. B., & Norgaard, R. B. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 253-268.

Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2(3), 295-309.

276 References

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stang, A., & Hawthorne, C. (2005). The green house: new directions in sustainable architecture: Princeton Architectural Pr.

Sullivan, E., & Ward, P. M. (2012). Sustainable housing applications and policies for low-income self-build and housing rehab. Habitat International, 36(2), 312-323.

Sullivan, J. G. (2007). Decision model for public sector assessment of sustainable buildings in Florida. University of Florida.

Sustainability Victoria. (2011). Business Models for Enabling Sustainable Precincts. Research Report, available at <http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Business_Models_For_Enabling_Sustainable_Precincts_Research_Report_v2.pdf>.

Teisman, G. (1992). Complex Decision making: a pluri-centric perspective of decision making about spatial investments: The Hague, NL.

Thabrew, L., Wiek A., Ries R. 2009, Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), pp. 67-76.

Theaker, I., & Cole, R. (2001). The role of local governments in fostering ‘green’ buildings: a case study. Building Research & Information, 29(5), 394-408.

Thorpe, A., Dainty, A., & Hatfield, H. (2003). The realities of being preferred: specialist subcontractor perspectives on restricted tender list membership. Journal of Construction Procurement, 9(1), 47-55.

Toner, P., Baird, M., Cooper, R., & Westcott, M. M. (2005). Long run shifts in the industry and workforce structure of the Australian construction industry: Implications for a sustainable labour supply. Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand, 510 – 503.

Tompkins, E. L. and W. N. Adger. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecological Society 9(2):10. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/.

Turcotte, D. A. (2007). A framework for sustainable housing development in the United States. PhD Thesis, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2003). UNEP initiative on capacity building for integrated assessment and planning for sustainable development. Report from Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.

Urban Development Institute of Australia. (2011). Brisbane, viewed 01 Oct 2011, <http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=57>.

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts.Geoforum, 42(3), 342-348.

van Bueren, E. (2007). Establishing sustainability: policy successes and failures. Building Research & Information, 35(5), 543-556.

References 277

van Bueren, E., & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2005). Improving governance arrangements in support of sustainable cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 47-66.

Vandevyvere, H., & Neuckermans, H. (2005). From sustainable housing sciences to sustainable housing policies: Challenging the social responsibility of researchers and designers. Paper presented at World Congress on Housing Transforming Housing Environments through Design, pretoria, South Africa, September 27-30.

Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modelling. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, 4(1), 81-87.

Warnock, A. C. (2007). An overview of integrating instruments to achieve sustainable construction and buildings. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(4), 427-441.

Weber EP. (2003). Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 317.

Wedding, G. (2008). Understanding sustainability in real estate: A focus on measuring and communicating success in green building. PhD Thesis, School of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, University of North Carolina, USA.

Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: a guide for researchers: Rout ledge.

Wilkinson, S. J., & Reed, R. G. (2007). The Structural and Behaviourial Barriers to Sustainable Real Estate Development. Paper presented at American Real Estate Society (ARES) Conference, San Francisco, USA, 11-14 April 2007.

Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Development (Bradford), 15(3), 135.

Williams, K., Joynt, J. L. R., Payne, C., Hopkins, D., & Smith, I. (2011). The conditions for, and challenges of adapting England’s suburbs for climate change. Building and Environment, 55, 131-140.

Williamson, T., Soebarto, V., & Radford, A. (2010). Comfort and energy use in five Australian award-wining houses: regulated, measured and perceived. Building Research & Information, 38 (5), 509-529.

Wolfgang, R. (2007). Attitudes and behaviour of German homebuyers towards aspects of sustainable housing. Presented at ENHR 2007 International Conference ' Sustainable Urban Areas', 25-28 June, Rotterdam.

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. (2000). Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC

Woodhead, A., Thomas, J., & Mah, J. (2009). Sustainability in supply chains : using systems thinking to work towards sustainability in corporations and their supply chains. A book chapter from “Link Strategy and Australian Research Institute in

278 References

Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts”: Macquarie university, Sydney.

Yang, J., & Alder, S. J. (2005). The exploration of attitudinal issues and decision-making of key stakeholders in sustainable housing development. Paper presented at the International conference on engaging communities, Brisbane, Australia, 14-17 August.

Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., Drew, D. S., & Xue, X. (2010). Stakeholder management in construction: an empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 900-910.

Yates, A. (2001). Quantifying the Business Benefits of Sustainable Buildings. Building Resarch Establishment Report, Centre for Sustainable Construction.

Yeung, F.Y., Chan, P.C., Chan, W.M. and LI, L.K. (2007) Developing of a partnering performance index (PPI) for construction projects in Hong Kong: a Delphi study, Construction Management and Economics, 25, 1219-1237.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5): Sage Publications, Inc.

Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection: Strategic alliances in corporate life. Transaction, New York.

Zhang, X., Shen, L., & Wu, Y. (2011). Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing development: a China study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2), 157-167.

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth Edition, Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, 308-319.

Zhexembayeva, N. T. (2008). Towards a model of mutual benefit: Business and society in the context of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. PhD Thesis, Department of Organizational Behaviour, Case Western Reserve University, USA.

Appendices 279

Appendices

Appendix A1 Invitation Letter – Questionnaire

Invitation to Questionnaire Survey on

CRITICAL FACTORS OF PROMOTING STAKEHOLDER MUTUAL

BENEFITS FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am inviting you to participate in a study of Sustainable housing. This questionnaire

represents part of a doctoral research project at QUT to develop a collaborative

framework which facilitates the implementation of sustainable housing in Australia.

Your feedback will be used to help multiple stakeholders understand the potential

advantages of engaging in sustainable housing development from innovative

cooperation and partnering within their supply chain network.

The questionnaire should take about 10 minutes to complete. You can complete the

survey by clicking this link:

http://survey.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cOcgXDy7x7S7UIA

The researcher guarantees that all your information and answers will remain strictly

confidential to the research team, as the main data set of the research project for the

researcher’s PhD degree at QUT. No judgment and evaluation on individuals will be

made, and no individual data will be presented in isolation. This research meets the

requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research as

shown in the attachment. The ethics approval number generated from QUT is

1000000367. The contact person for Ethical Clearance is Janette Lamb, tel. 07 3138

5123, e-mail: [email protected]

280 Appendices

If you respond by Friday Nov.19 2010, you will have the opportunity to win one of

five $50 gift cards. The names will be announced in an email to all by Monday

Nov.22 2010.

If you have any questions about the survey or would like further information about

the survey results please contact Zane Yang on (+61) 0430883200, email:

[email protected].

Thank you very much for your time and feedback.

Best regards

Zhengyu (Zane) Yang

PhD Candidate Student

School of Urban Development

Faculty of Built Environment & Engineering


Level 8, S Block, QUT GP Campus

2 George Street, Brisbane

QLD 4000, Australia

Tel :+61 (07)3138 9945

Email : [email protected]

Appendices 281

Additional Information

Participation

Thank you for your time to consider this survey. Your participation in this project is

voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any

time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will

in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. Please note that

it will not be possible to withdraw, once you have submitted the questionnaire.

Risks

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your

participation in this survey.

Confidentiality

All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The

names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses.

Consent to Participate

The return of the completed questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your

consent to participate in this project.

Questions / further information about the project

Please contact the researcher to have any questions answered or if you require further

information about the project.

Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research

projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical

conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138

2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected

with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an

impartial manner.

282 Appendices

Appendix A2 A Sample of the Questionnaire

Appendices 283

284 Appendices

Appendices 285

286 Appendices

Appendices 287

Appendix B1 Invitation Letter – Interview

Invitation to Interview on

CRITICAL FACTORS OF PROMOTING STAKEHOLDER MUTUAL

BENEFITS FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks again for agreeing to take part in the study. I am writing to confirm our

telephone meeting on Date/Time.

To quickly recap, I am studying a doctoral degree on construction management at

Queensland University and Technology and my research is on The Implementation

of Sustainable Housing through Mutual Benefits to Multiple Stakeholders. This in-

depth interview will explore the adaptive strategies for tackling the critical

challenges of sustainable housing engagement, and particularly try to link potential

advantages of engaging in sustainable housing with innovative cooperation within

key stakeholder’s immediate network.

The interview questions and a copy of the survey findings will be sent for your

reference on Monday Morning. The main items to be discussed are:

Adaptive strategies in tackling critical challenges of sustainable housing

Views on benefit allocation within each stakeholder’s immediate network in

sustainable housing developments

Current partnership and value gaps within each stakeholder’s immediate

network

Role that cooperation plays in filling the value gaps and in turn realizing

mutual benefits

Approaches to improve collaboration and partnerships in sustainable housing

development

288 Appendices

Please note that the confidentiality of every participant in this study is of the utmost

importance, personal identities of participants would not be disclosed and data

submitted by participants would not be personally identified by their responses.

Should you wish to find out more about the research, please do not hesitate to contact

me at 0430883200 or by return of this email [email protected]. I look forward to

seeing you at your site office. (please advise the detailed address)

Best regards

Zhengyu (Zane) Yang

PhD Candidate Student

School of Urban Development

Faculty of Built Environment & Engineering


Level 8, S Block, QUT GP Campus

2 George Street, Brisbane

QLD 4000, Australia

Tel :+61 (07)3138 9945

Email : [email protected]

Appendices 289

Appendix B2 A Sample of the Interview Question Sheet (for Government Agency officials)

SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (QUT) BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA Research on

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE HOUSING THROUGH MUTUAL BENEFITS TO MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS ZANE YANG PhD Candidate School of Urban Development Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology 2 George St GPO Box 2434 Brisbane Qld 4001 Australia Mobile: 0430 883 200 Email: [email protected]

Note:

290 Appendices

1. This version of interview questions is designed for government body officials only. Question could be different for other stakeholders according to their differing questionnaire results across different stakeholders. For example, the questionnaire indicated that real estate agencies are not in the immediate network of government agencies, so the latter was not included in Question 1.

2. Text in grey boxes lays the background information or represents findings from the completed questionnaire survey to assist the logical interpretation.

QUESTIONS OF IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW (for government agencies)

1. What do you really have to do differently to get a sustainable housing project done (compared with conventional/unsustainable housing)? Is there any extra work process?

Supplementary question: In your immediate network, do you interact

differently with any of them to get a sustainable housing project done

(compared with conventional housing)?

2.

Appendices 291

In reality, regarding the tangible benefit you expected from engaging in

sustainable housing, what is good and not so good (particularly downside)?

3.

Among the above stakeholders, do you think any of them is genuinely be harmed by the “sustainable” change so far (particularly those who benefit strongly from the status quo)? (Short term wins VS. long term wins) Supplementary question 1: Do you think any of them is in a way hindering your implementation of sustainable housing? If yes, what is the perception gap in between? (Refer to TQ) Supplementary question 2: If anyone can do anything to better the mutual-benefits in between, what is your suggestion? (For example, compromises/trade-off, compensation/reward, communicate/share value)

Tool Question (TQ): (From the survey I found a list of challenges with distinctively different ranks between developers and builders) government agencies and developers/builders/financial institutions ranked the challenges quite differently in the following ways. Some of differences might cause a potential conflict for your collaboration?

a. Second, the greatest value gap existing between you and developers is S4d.

b. Also, developers identified E1 and S1 as the top 3 challenges, while you ranked T5 and T2 distinctively high.

Table 1. Differences existing between your stakeholder group and others builders financial

institutions consultants

a. I1b S4f S4f, i3c

The survey identified that government agencies feel developers/builders/financial institutions/real estate agencies are to some extent unwilling to be involved in sustainable housing. On the other hand, they all rated high level willingness back at you.

The survey found that 73% of respondents consider sustainable housing as an opportunity rather than a risk. However, the survey also identified that the economic factors are still the most significant challenges for every stakeholder.

292 Appendices

b. E1, S1, T1 T2, E3 I3, T4, I5

4.

Do you think they should take the leadership in the sustainable housing

development? If not, who should?

5. (Showing the top 10 challenges of sustainable housing ranked by your stakeholder group) If you were to propose strategies to adapt to the top 10 challenges that we have not covered in the interview so far, who and what are in your mind?

The survey identified that government officials feel architects are the most influential stakeholder in affecting your decision making.

Appendices 293

Appendix B3 A Sample of Coded Categories of the Interview Study (Developer)

Developer Responses #1: Current work Process & Collaboration

Interviewee 1

1. Developers tailor products that meet the customer’s expectations and needs. 2. The key thing is that we can build communities and mandate the builders to

include certain sustainable elements. Covenants are good for doing that. 3. Educate the customers and the people that go through about the benefits of

sustainability elements

4. Real estate people struggle to sell sustainability because they don’t understand it

5. Government and the major electricity providers like Energexes should work together on demand management, so peak energy would be cut the save from infrastructure.

Interviewee2 1. Find a champion builder for sustainability via offering incentives through the tender process.

2. Communicate to the customer that you know there’s a different offer on the table. 3. Developers are the most influential because we’re trying to drive outcomes that

are beyond government regulation.

4. Architects understand the elements of sustainability in design, sustainability is inherent in what they do and they sell

5. Builders are all about selling a product. They are a lot more driven by the sales process than the design process. People are just interested in lowest cost and the builder has an obligation to provide that.

6. Government is influential because they drive star ratings by mandating.

7. Government could partner with different developers and builders to demonstrate outcomes.

8. Partnership is an opportunity. Government should support technologies to actually come to the market through incentives.

9. Government should communicate the reasons why they want to put it up to seven stars from 6

10. Developers and builders are not in the same boat. Developers are in a position where they can plan, design, and drive a project whereas builders are building one off houses here and there and have very small margin on each house. Developers should drive more.

11. Insurance providers could provide lower premiums for people that are working on sustainable housing projects.

Developer Responses #2: Benefit Gain & Loss

Interviewee1 1. Bigger rebates would have significantly more environmental benefits collectively across the nation than just putting more mandates and rebates on existing homes.

2. Builders have chosen to take advantage of the green movement and it gives them the ability to position themselves in a niche business to deliver on that.

3. Financial institutions could use the transformation to an advantage via a green loan

4. To mandate high sustainability targets, there needs to be a lot of effort that goes into training the real estate and the sales people to make sure that the key messages are coming across.

294 Appendices

Interviewee2 1. Developers and Builders should look a bit broader in how they build reputation brand and hopefully sales even the benefit gets allocated back to the ultimate owner.

2. Given the increasing energy price, higher capital cost is clearly a valuable investment because it will lower your ongoing running costs of the house.

3. Builders are less willing to wear the cost because their margin is small that they haven’t got a lot of room to move. The question is for them is what does the future hold?

4. Obviously builders say that once they have changed their designs they want to use it for the next 5 years also

5. Doing solar might increase energy bills partially because of the tariffs people need to be on in some states.

Developer Responses #3: Potential collaboration, mutual benefits & big ideas

Interviewee1 1. No one likes too much paperwork, customers like to see something simpler. 2. Incentives to should come straight back to the builder so that they can sort of pass

those benefits and savings and handle that paperwork straight back onto the customer so it’s seamless.

3. Mandates will improve mutual benefits in the sense that we already changes from 3 stars to 6 stars over the past 10 years and people are not having too much problem doing it.

4. Health and well‐being is probably one of the big benefits.

Interviewee2 1. Go with the increasing scale then every industry person will benefit. 2. At the moment we could divide the market and target the proper segment while

we wait for marketing growth. 3. All of it has got to be about people starting to communicate the value in

sustainable housing and that needs education.

Developer Responses #4: Behavior change expectation & other issues

Interviewee1 1. Cutting the prices is one thing. I think education on the benefits of some products is another.

2. You can be all pushing for an outcome but if the customer doesn’t want it you’re not going to be able to sell it no matter how much you try.

3. It’s a combination of improved technologies and economies of scale. We will see this in PV technology in the next few years.

4. If sustainability is built in as part of the then the customers will take that on without even necessarily knowing it

5. Mandates will make the change.

1. Valuers just benchmark their evaluations on previous sales, they don’t value in‐built sustainability.

Interviewee 2

1. Where we’ve got examples on the ground people can go in and look and feel. 2. Only five to ten percent of builders are doing sustainability all the time for their

niche market, because the demand is lacking. 3. There are probably two levels of sustainability: one is about the technical operation

of the house, another is about the continuity of the government and industry endeavour

4. People blindly chase after bigger house for resale’s sake without thinking about the functionality.

5. The rating tool is not as important as the people’s understanding of what the rating tool is trying to do. It should be a customer driven thing and the rating tool merely let’s you know how you’re performing.

6. It’s not just buy a house, stick it on the ground and then suddenly you’ll be more sustainable. It’s buy a house, learn how to operate the house and then operate that house effectively. Consumer’s behaviour should be educated and influenced.

Appendices 295

Appendix C Consent Form

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT STATEMENT for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE HOUSING THROUGH MUTUAL BENEFITS TO STAKEHOLDERS

Research Team Contacts

Zhengyu Yang– PhD candidate School of Urban Development, BEE, QUT

0430883200 [email protected]

Participation Thank you for your time for considering this questionnaire/interview. Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. Please note that it will not be possible to withdraw, once you have submitted the questionnaire. Risks There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. Confidentiality All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Consent to Participate The signature below is required as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. Questions / further information about the project Please contact the researcher to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner. Statement of Consent

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

have read and understood the information document regarding this project

have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

296 Appendices

understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on +61 7 3138 5123 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

understand that the project will include audio recording

agree to participate in the project

Name

Signature

Date / /

Please return this sheet to the investigator.